
Obama Administration Comes Out Against SOPA, PIPA - llambda
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/01/obama-administration-comes-out-against-sopa-pipa.php
======
sudonim
I disagree wholeheartedly with that statement. From my post
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3464849> in another thread on this:

It reads to me like a lot of agreeing with SOPA opposition: "We must avoid
creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of
the Internet."

But then tries to jam in:

"That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass
sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new
legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders"

No! The internet has no borders. American laws and "rights" don't apply
outside of the United States. That's why the United States tortures people
outside of the US. You can't say that US law applies to copying MP3s, but not
torture.

That's why if you read between the lines, the response is not saying "We agree
with you.", it's saying "I'll get you next time, Gadget, next time."

~~~
phaus
They interrogate and torture people in other countries because that is where
they find them. There wouldn't be any point in sending someone back to the
states. The conflict is in the middle east. Therefore the people we need
information from are usually in the middle east.

When the U.S. government tortures someone in a different country, it is still
illegal. U.S. Government employees are bound by U.S. Law no matter where they
are. If you are a member of the military you are actually bound by the UCMJ as
well as U.S. law. It has nothing to do with the location.

~~~
sudonim
My bit was a little off-topic, but you should look up extraordinary rendition.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_rendition_by_the_United_States)

It almost always involves abducting someone from a country and taking them to
another country. If it didn't have anything to do with location, then why
would they do that?

~~~
phaus
I stand corrected. If I am understanding this correctly it seems like they are
getting the other countries to torture suspects for them, so they can feign
ignorance. If the military or CIA were to personally torture people in these
countries they might not get caught, but they would still be in violation of
U.S. law.

Thanks for linking the article. Whenever I had heard people complaining about
the torture of terrorists I always assumed they were talking solely about the
incidents taking place in Iraq/Afghanistan. This was eye-opening.

------
joelgrus
I don't see anywhere in the statement where they say they're "against" the
bills. They express some concerns, but they leave themselves a ton of room to
support slightly modified versions.

~~~
phaus
Exactly. The only thing that I got out of the article was that they are
opposed to making themselves look bad. The only politicians and companies that
can be trusted when they say that they oppose SOPA are the ones who opposed it
from the start. If normal citizens hadn't started the SOPA awareness campaign
then SOPA would have been passed already. The rest of these people are just
jumping on a bandwagon to save themselves some bad publicity.

People need to realize that every single politician who decided to oppose SOPA
only after the public applied pressure is a liar. These people supported SOPA
with full knowledge of what it would do to the internet. The Obama
administration has a ton of people who got to where they are because of the
entertainment industry lobbyists. The next administration will too.

