

Alexis Ohanian and Dan Kaminsky will address Congress on Jan 18th - nextparadigms
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2012/01/09/reddit-founder-dns-hacker-and-other-sopa-critics-to-address-congress/

======
d_r
Is anyone else irked by Forbes' need to use a "revenge of the nerds" picture
there? I feel like the SOPA argument is inherently skewed for most Americans,
and it is bitterly unfair.

Pro side: "we're stopping evil foreign counterfeiters, we're helping save
American jobs, we're looking out for your safety."

Con side: "complicated sounding tech mumbo jumbo, this will break the
internet, and some references to Libya"

Which side would you support if you didn't know any better?

SOPA affects more than just the "nerds." How can the messaging be improved?
How can it be made more compelling to resonate more with laypeople?

Why aren't the "influential" people focusing on the message?

~~~
kn0thing
I agree. This is why I'll be dressed more like a businessman than a nerd, like
the last time:
[https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmo...](https://plus.google.com/113164038788726940319/posts/ab9eFgmovJ1)

~~~
invalidOrTaken
Would you consider open-sourcing the preparation of your address? You'd still
retain full control of what you actually say (how would anyone stop you?) but
you could potentially have a lot of very sharp
researchers/designers/copywriters (hilariously enough, I suspect pure
programming skills would be the _least_ useful here) going over every inch of
it and providing statistics, infographics, drawings, suggestions, etc. Between
HN and /r/SOPA, it could very well be helpful.

~~~
kn0thing
I tried this with a Google doc on /r/technology before my last trip to DC and
it failed miserably, but I'd love to try again.
[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/meg8w/im_hoping_...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/meg8w/im_hoping_to_testify_before_congress_on_thursday/)

~~~
Natsu
Well, we can at least arm you with all the helpful information we can dig up.
Personally, I would hammer on a few main points: SOPA is ineffective,
expensive and dangerous. Build from there. Lead with your best arguments, cull
the weak ones, hammer on them with the points they're least able to refute.

 __* Ineffective

Australia had a bill like this (which is dead... for now), but also did some
trials. Read the reports to see how big a failure that was (scroll down to
"Live filtering trials"):

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Austral...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Australia)

Even if you have full control of a network, it's not so easy to keep pirates
off of it. Why else would there be pirates on the RIAA's own network?

[https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-someone-else-is-pirating-
throu...](https://torrentfreak.com/riaa-someone-else-is-pirating-through-out-
ip-addresses-111221/)

And there are already countermeasures, so the law has been rendered obsolete
even before being passed:

[http://www.itnews.com.au/News/285170,firefox-add-on-
circumve...](http://www.itnews.com.au/News/285170,firefox-add-on-circumvents-
sopa-blocking.aspx)

 __* Expensive

As you of all people know, these new requirements would be incredibly taxing
for startups, preventing new jobs from being created. This would require every
site to implement filters, slowing everything, raising costs and blocking
innocent things by mistake. The CATO institute has shown, using the MPAA's own
research, that it won't even save one job all told:

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/04545217274/cato-i...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120104/04545217274/cato-
institute-digs-into-mpaas-own-research-to-show-that-sopa-wouldnt-save-single-
net-job.shtml)

Their numbers are overblown:

<http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100801/17431810439.shtml>

[http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/playing-numbers-why-
sopa...](http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/playing-numbers-why-sopa-still-
wont-solve-int)

How much will this cost? I could make up a number. Indeed, a lot of numbers
have been made up in support of SOPA already. We've already established that
it will be ineffective, so the benefits are approximately zero, making it
difficult to justify any cost. So rather than inventing numbers, I will point
instead to what I do know, that these are the people who will be paying the
price:

[https://www.cdt.org/report/growing-chorus-opposition-stop-
on...](https://www.cdt.org/report/growing-chorus-opposition-stop-online-
piracy-act)

 __* Dangerous

Whether they're trying to hijack DNS requests or web pages, censoring
firewalls are bad for security, because if you control the device doing the
hijacking, you can use it for whatever. Incidentally, existing products like
SmartFilter already perform MITM attacks every time you try to visit an https
page. In theory, the organization is supposed to add their key to everyone's
computer and then they sign a bunch of fake sites with the firewall. When they
don't bother doing that, you see it attempting to hack your connection all the
time.

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/18075617093/former...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111214/18075617093/former-
dhs-assistant-secretary-stewart-baker-sopa-20-still-disaster-
cybersecurity.shtml)

Or you can refer to these:

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/10413817347/co-
cha...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120109/10413817347/co-chair-
congressional-cybersecurity-caucus-says-sopa-would-interfere-with-online-
security.shtml)

[http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/managers-amendment-
sopa-...](http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/managers-amendment-sopa-doesnt-
fix-whats-aili)

Also, it undermines our own State Department's efforts to promote freedom &
democracy abroad.

[http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120105/13282317290/us-
sta...](http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120105/13282317290/us-state-dept-
dont-censor-internet-unless-we-order-you-to-as-we-did-spain.shtml)

Anyhow, I hope this is enough. Please make any use of this you can. Good luck!

~~~
kn0thing
Wow! Very nicely done. Thank you.

~~~
Natsu
You're welcome. I've been following this news for a lot longer than most, so
if there's ever anything I can help with, feel free to ask.

Ars & TorrentFreak probably have the most complete original coverage of this
stuff if you're ever looking things up or want to find more meat to add to an
argument.

Good luck!

~~~
kn0thing
Oh, and don't forget Techdirt.com -- I just need a machine to turn reality
into a 10 word soundbyte....

~~~
Natsu
Yeah, they're another good source. I wonder if it would be feasible for you to
talk to some of their reporters who cover this beat? Some of them have talked
to a lot of people and they remember a lot. One of the articles at Ars went
over how Hollywood has predicted "DOOM!" for every new tech, including the
copier & VCR.

The best serious scholarly legal works are by a guy named William Patry. His
books _Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars_ and _How to Fix Copyright_ are the
two most relevant here, though it's quite a long read given that you have like
3 days. You may or may not know that name, but he wrote a huge series on
copyright law (_Patry on Copyright_) that lawyers use as a reference. He also
worked for Google, though he's sick of hearing crap about that. He had exactly
the same opinions about copyright law before & after being hired; namely, that
they should promote progress. Congress, meanwhile, cares more about money
issues, as always. Still, that's a point you probably do need to keep in mind
when talking to them.

Hollywood is posting record profits, BTW. I think TF had an article about that
a month or so back. Their numbers are all ass-pulls, not unlike their crazy
accounting techniques. Might be worth hitting them on their lack of math,
because they've screwed more than a few artists that way. Our problem isn't
with the artists, it's with the industry.

Might also want to come up with some soundbites. Find some questions you're
almost sure to be asked and have short, witty replies waiting for them. Bounce
them off some friends/supports in private first to make sure they work,
though. We'll be rooting for you.

------
scott_s
Alexis, please consider explaining why Congress has not heard what you and the
other experts are there to say. If I was to say it myself, I would say "I'm
sorry for putting you in this position. You're in this position because
Washington does not undertand technology. And that is because technology does
not understand Washington. We need to change that."

Part of the problem is that the RIAA and MPAA have active lobbying efforts. We
don't need to frame it as "buying influence," just that if one set of people
are the only ones around explaining a problem and its solutions, that's all
they're going to know. The technology industry needs lobbyists heading off
these sorts of issues by actively explaining to Congress people the
implications of doing this sort of thing.

I imagine that something they will think is, "If what these people are saying
is true, and the consequences are so dire, how is it possible that I didn't
hear this before?" This explanation answers that question, and, I think, makes
the technical explanations and their wider implications more believable.

------
aspir
This is a step in the right direction, but this level of action should not
stop after SOPA. The tech industry is so large and powerful in this current
era that it's due time that it begin to develop a more powerful voice in
Washington.

SOPA has made it this far because our congress does not have a reliable
technology lobby to educate our lawmakers. SOPA would have been killed already
if this lobby existed in full strength; and this industry has the funds to
have actually created this presence many years ago.

We should focus on stopping SOPA, of course, but after this episode, something
needs to be put in place to prevent this from happening again.

~~~
toyg
Who is large and powerful in the tech industry? Apple, Microsoft, Oracle,
Adobe... they all have their own long-established lobbying efforts in place.

Unfortunately, they don't _care_ about the internet; the net is actually
disruptive of their business model, for the most part. You can look at BSA's
position to see what "big money" from the tech industry really wants. For
them, Google, Facebook etc, are uppity competitors, and they'd love to see
them cut to size by the government.

So it's rather the _internet-based_ industry, rather than the generic "tech
world", who should improve their lobbying. FB, Google and Twitter execs should
start cashing in some of those umpteen photo-ops with Obama, threatening to
sponsor and enable primary challengers for everyone who will vote for bad
bills. Even better, threaten to silently downrank specific politicians on
their sites: "we can do censorship too, let's see how _you_ hurt when people
can't find your donation page".

~~~
prophetjohn
I hate to break it to you, Apple, Microsoft and the rest: they're all
essentially internet-based. If Apple doesn't care about the internet, they
need to have a long, hard think about why people are buying their products.
How many iPads are they going to sell when people can only access a crippled
version of Facebook and Twitter is shut down?

The technology industry as it is today exists almost exclusively because of
the ubiquity of the internet. Companies whose products stand to suffer
directly from SOPA are not the only tech companies that should be worried; any
company whose profits are a result of the proliferation of the internet should
be scared of SOPA. That's almost every single tech company out there.

~~~
toyg
Eh, go tell the BSA... I bet Microsoft would thrive in a censored internet as
much as it did in the pre-internet days.

------
tmcw
> Opponents of the Stop Online Piracy Act, the bill that threatens to block
> large swathes of foreign websites for alleged copyright infringement, have
> complained that Congress has yet to hear their voice.

Foreign websites? This, combined with the fact that they're referred to once
as 'haters' and twice as 'nerds', makes me think that Forbes is worthless at
writing about anything except how rich blue-chip CEOs are.

~~~
citadrianne
Not defending Forbes, but the bill was amended to only apply to sites outside
US jurisdiction.

"Lamar’s amendments also clarify that sites ending in .com, .org and .net are
not covered by the bill. Only foreign sites fall under SOPA’s wrath."

[http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/sopa-watered-
down-a...](http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/sopa-watered-down-
amendment/)

~~~
nextparadigms
So co.uk sites are a go. Please explain what gives US the right to do that?
Especially without due process.

~~~
skymt
Why wouldn't they have the right? The DNS servers in question are physically
in US territory. And due process is part of the bill: in the current version a
domain takedown requires a court order. Weak protection to be sure, given the
army of lawyers the MPAA has lined up and the tendency of some judges to
rubber-stamp legitimate-seeming orders, but not strictly speaking a due-
process issue.

~~~
sp332
IANA is only under (US-based) ICANN control because of the grudging agreement
of the rest of the world. There have been arguments to remove control over the
DNS root from US jurisdiction, but each time the US Government and ICANN have
promised not to do something like SOPA.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_zone_file#Root_server_sup...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_zone_file#Root_server_supervision)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assig...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Corporation_for_Assigned_Names_and_Numbers#History)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Auth...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#Oversight)

------
herval
On a totally off-topic note: I don't know a large number of successful
individuals, but I have to say that Mr Ohanian is among the most approachable,
good people I've met so far.

I wish some of the "successful" individuals I know back home would learn a
lesson or two from people like him...

(brace for the downvotes)

~~~
kn0thing
Ignore the downvotes :) thanks! I hope this is part of the reason why they've
invited me back to DC.

------
rythie
Someone [a designer probably] needs to make one of those really nicely
designed micro-sites with a really clear explaination of why SOPA is bad.

For example this is nice: <http://rogerdudler.github.com/git-guide/> but what
if the same effort could go into explaining SOPA to lay people (and
politicians)?

------
IgorPartola
What will happen if SOPA passes? I don't mean the legal consequences, but
rather: will we just create a new way to exchange DNS information, such as a
giant hosts file distributed over BitTorrent that contains the addresses of
most popular websites? Or will the geeks shrug this one off and move on, just
with half of the Internet going dark?

The way I see it, the internet has always found a way to adapt in the past,
and the greater the threat, the more ingenious the solution. Currently, bunch
of people on Reddit are trying to build an (IMHO) hopeless mesh network, but
the real need is not there yet. What happens if SOPA goes through and we can
no longer use the internet as is and the need becomes urgent?

~~~
chunkyslink
> What will happen if SOPA passes?

I'm going to close Facebook down by regularly posting links to copyrighted
files and 'letting the authorities know'.

I cant wait.

edit: _What a completely ridiculous situation this is_

------
doki_pen
I find it interesting that technical arguments will be heard but there will be
no debate about liberty and the 1st amendment.

~~~
skymt
Is there really an obvious 1st-amendment issue here? SOPA is a censorship tool
with great potential for abuse, but as written and intended it targets IP
infringement, a very narrow category of speech that our society has already
decided to censor. The 1st amendment will come into play when Congress wants
to censor more, not merely censor better.

~~~
gergles
Prior restraint is the biggest 1st-amendment issue possible (as expressed by
SCOTUS in several opinions), and shutting down sites based on a say-so and a
court order that the site "looks infringing" is prior restraint.

------
walru
What needs to be addressed more than anything is the capricious wording of the
legislation, and how it puts an extreme amount of power into a very select few
individuals who remain hidden behind drawn curtain.

More than any inconvenience this provides for a company which operates on the
web, this is censorship in its highest form.

------
clebio
While it's nice that opposition to SOPA is getting some traction, the passage
of the 2012 NDAA slipped by with little fanfare. Criticism and debate of that
legislation are moot now. though NDAA is not a technological issue of itself,
sections 1021 and 1022 still diminish our civil liberties much more
effectively.

I'm glad to see the knowledge-worker communities rallying around a topic
peripheral to our basic freedoms, but I fear we've missed the boat on this
one. Regrettably, pizza sauce in school lunches was not the only bit of smoke
and mirrors foist upon us.

------
xtc
Dan needs to maintain his composure when talking about DNS.

------
dicroce
Ask them if they've ever seen one of these:

74.125.224.49

Then tell them that if THEY have seen IP addresses, then the pirates that are
trading copyright material online certainly have, and that with just an IP
address, SOPA can be circumvented.

~~~
wl
SOPA provides for DNS _and_ IP blacklisting. In fact, there was even a failed
amendment to take the IP blacklisting out.

------
dimitertg
I believe this video explains it very nicely in businessman's / lawmaker's
terms: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhwuXNv8fJM>

