Would Obama Veto SOPA? Extremely Doubtful
techdirt.com
techdirt.com
Classic. Leave IP issues to the plagiarist.
"He went on to receive his Juris Doctor from Syracuse University's College of Law in 1968,[19] where by his own description he found it to be "the biggest bore in the world" and pulled many all-nighters to get by.[15][20] During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and he was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.[20] He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.[19]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden_presidential_campaign...
There is no way that Obama hasn't taken the temperature on SOPA by now. Obama's most vocal liberal base will transform into an internet hate machine to rival the likes of the tea party if SOPA is signed. There is also the Ron Paul crew capturing more and more Democratic voters by the day, a signature on SOPA would be an incredible windfall for them in terms of people who would refuse to vote for Obama out of pure anger.
I don't underestimate the influence of these interests in Washington, but SOPA is really unpopular right now and getting more so by the day.
I think it's really unpopular on HN and on websites with "tech" in the name, but is the general electorate even aware of the issue? I don't see much about SOPA in the MSM (admittedly the last several months have had a lot of news-worthy events).
I would argue that the tech media is pretty hip these days and not as far removed from the general electorate as you might think, but only time will tell.
To be honest I think SOPA is inevitable, most people won't be able to grasp the level of injustice involved until it is enforced.
Unless they're willing to vote for his opponent, and they're not, that doesn't matter.
Politicians are only interested in things that affect votes. Signing SOPA will not lose Obama a single state. However, signing it will give him money to win states.
The Repubs are the ones who are playing this one dumb. They should oppose SOPA and all "protect Hollywood/MPAA" measures because those measures give money to folks who contribute to Dems.
I still believe wholeheartedly that he is a good man, with good intentions. But he lacked the conviction and courage to be a "leader". Instead he focused on reelections from the start. You're the president of the United stated of America ffs! You can get away with a lot more than you think, look at your predecessors.
If the law is amended to allow Tor (as was attempted) and then passes, then how long before Tor becomes a household name?
More details here: https://www.torproject.org/about/torusers.html.en#military
Along with that a conundrum will be created, since such tools are used by Chinese citizens to bypass their governmental firewalls, by people in the middle east to bypass similar types of blockages among others, etc.
It was a comparatively minor project from a minor agency where it is no longer developed.
Not only that, but Tor is too closely associated with the seedier sides of the internet for any elected politician to stand up for it specifically.
Thinking that the President will override a bill because of a minor thing like Tor is grasping at straws.
Obama's not going to veto SOPA based on a (borderline) argument that it makes a tool which might be used by intelligence agencies, in some possible circumstances possibly illegal.
The argument that it needs lots of non-agency uses to hide traffic is plainly nonsense. If an intelligence agent (or subversive citizen) is using it in a country where it is banned they are going to be in trouble no matter if it is illegal in the US or not.
If it was a concern for US intelligence agencies (which I don't concede it is at all) then that can easily handle it themselves - they get an executive order allowing them to run exit nodes and then what they are doing is legal. Even by the borderline argument that Tor could be illegal under SOPA would only make it a problem for people running exit nodes - use by the general population. I doubt any intelligence agency would complain about being ordered to run a Tor exit node - I think they would love it.
I find it bizarre that people are even talking about this, when in the same source article where this was first raised it said the following:
"Browsers implementing DNSSEC will have to circumvent and bypass criminal blocking, and in the process, they will also circumvent and bypass SOPA orders." A successful injunction from the attorney general, Baker said, would shut down all shipments of a Web browser "until it's been revised to the satisfaction of his staff and their advisers in Hollywood."[1]
The US federal government provided funding to develop and deploy DNSSEC[2], too, and that is also useful for dissidents overseas. It also helps secure communications for billions (if not trillions) of dollars in ecommerce transaction. If that is ignored, do you really think Tor is going to get the bill vetoed?
[1] http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57346592-281/how-sopas-cir...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Ext...
This is still a problem. How long has it been since the PATRIOT Act was signed into law (Oct 26, 2001) and how many of it's 325 amendments and 9 additions have been repealed due to judicial decisions noting that they are against the rights granted to US citizens under the constitution or bill of rights?
This post is on the mark. "The Internet's" problem is that it doesn't have anything to hold over Obama's head. Yet.
Not a particularly strong argument, but I don't think a strong case will win this fight. Many different people from many walks of life need to be angry about SOPA before Obama could walk away from the bill easily with "The people don't want this." Nerds on the internet probably won't convince him alone.
1) The Republican party will nominate Mitt Romney, and the election will be a closely contested competition between two men who are disliked by the most active parts of their respective parties.
2) The Republicans will nominate one of the crazy brigade, who will have a small set of very loud proponents but will scare moderate Republicans enough not to vote, and scare Democrats and independents enough that they will turn up to vote for Obama.
(There are other, less likely options. Huntsman is centralist enough to gets votes from unsatisfied independents, and I think Perry could win if he managed to get the nomination. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/27/how-can-... is a good summary of the current state of the Republican race)
This isn't because of some conspiricy, but simply because what he believes isn't supported by enough people. Worse, many (most?) actively oppose at least some of his policies.
Not only will Democrats oppose him, but most Republicans don't believe he represents them (see recent comments from various Republicans about how they wouldn't vote for him)
(Personally, I think SOPA passing would be a minor price to pay compared to Paul becoming President (and I am totally opposed to SOPA - I just think its importance is much less than some of the things Paul would do))
Among many other things, his support for Israel is poor to non existent, and someone who doesn't support Israel has no chance of winning. Support for Israel is around 63% in the general public, and in the high 80's among Republicans.
His positions on a host of other things appear completely crazy to most people, and they'll never vote for him.
Last election he ran on transparency, change and hope.
And as three years went by there was no transparency in billions of dollars (TARP) given to big corporations. Change? yeah sure, for worse. And he does not talk about hope any more, since millions of Americans does no have job and economy is not even getting better.
In this campaign he is all about class warfare, soak the rich taxes. Do we even count him as leader who divides people of the country every day in his speeches?
Make me fool once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Its amazing how people fall for this tactic over and over again
:)
That's not how you say it. Not in Tennessee, not in Texas.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me can't get fooled again.
"A potential new argument against SOPA would be that it limits the campaigning power of challengers of sitting political candidates, especially those running for higher offices."
This gives incumbents yet another way to defend their seat. If an incumbent has any authority over any agency that decides, submits, enforces, or challenges these requests, would it be misused?
We like to think not.. but I think we've seen otherwise.
On what basis? The was the controversy over the ownership of the Obama Hope image, but apart from that I' not aware of anything that would have violated SOPA.
Enlighten me, please.