Risk
1/18/2012
12:49 PM
50%
50%

SOPA: 10 Key Facts About Piracy Bill

Despite mass opposition to the SOPA and PIPA anti-piracy bills, both continue to move forward in Congress. Here's an update on what's at stake and where the bills stand.

6. Critics cry censorship.
Because SOPA and PIPA would block Internet users from seeing sites that the U.S. government--or perhaps third parties--had accused of hosting pirated content, critics of the bills have posited that the legislation could serve as a censorship weapon for copyright holders. Or as Wikipedia said on its blackout notice Wednesday, "the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet."

7. Movie studios still like the bills.
If technology companies are largely arrayed against SOPA, the same isn't true for music producers and movie studios, which continue to look to legal sanctions to increase their revenue and reduce piracy. Notably, Chris Dodd, a former senator and now the Motion Picture Association of America CEO, released a statement labeling the blackout as "a dangerous gimmick," as well as "an abuse of power" by the companies involved.

8. The White House has criticized the bills.
Over the weekend, three of the Obama administration's leading technologists issued a statement that acknowledged the need to control online piracy, but criticized SOPA and PIPA for being overly broad. "We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet," they said.

9. Legislative marketing, versus reality.
What do you call a bill that promises to stop online privacy, but which has been criticized by many leading technologists? Without a doubt, at one level, the proposed bills are legislators' attempt to say to constituents and donors, "Look, I proposed a bill about stopping online privacy." But will their approaches actually solve the piracy problem? Blocking websites is inelegant from a technology perspective, and thorny from a freedom-of-speech standpoint.

10. Rogue websites remain difficult to stop.
Beyond DNS filtering, how else might authorities target rogue foreign websites? As part of Operation In Our Sites, federal authorities have used court orders to seize the domain names for hundreds of sites that they determined were hosting pirated content. But there's little to stop the operators of those sites from simply transferring operations to a new domain name, or--in some cases--suing the government for wrongfully seizing their site.

Heightened concern that users could inadvertently expose or leak--or purposely steal--an organization's sensitive data has spurred debate over the proper technology and training to protect the crown jewels. An Insider Threat Reality Check, a special retrospective of recent news coverage, takes a look at how organizations are handling the threat--and what users are really up to. (Free registration required.)

Previous
2 of 2
Next
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
cxf
50%
50%
cxf,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/19/2012 | 3:19:35 PM
re: SOPA: 10 Key Facts About Piracy Bill
Content authors already have the civil and criminal remedies they need through existing piracy laws. I'm reminded by this with every copyrighted DVD I watch. It's clear, that if I violate Federal copyright laws, I could face 5 years in the pokie, and a $250,000 fine. Isn't that enough? It is for me.
Bprince
50%
50%
Bprince,
User Rank: Ninja
1/19/2012 | 2:21:36 AM
re: SOPA: 10 Key Facts About Piracy Bill
SOPA and PIPA seem basically dead at the moment. A lot of politicians are dropping support according to the Washington Post. The masses appear to have spoken.
Brian Prince, InformationWeek/Dark Reading Comment Moderator
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2013-7444
Published: 2015-09-01
The Special:Contributions page in MediaWiki before 1.22.0 allows remote attackers to determine if an IP is autoblocked via the "Change block" text.

CVE-2015-2807
Published: 2015-09-01
Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in js/window.php in the Navis DocumentCloud plugin before 0.1.1 for WordPress allows remote attackers to inject arbitrary web script or HTML via the wpbase parameter.

CVE-2015-6520
Published: 2015-09-01
IPPUSBXD before 1.22 listens on all interfaces, which allows remote attackers to obtain access to USB connected printers via a direct request.

CVE-2015-6727
Published: 2015-09-01
The Special:DeletedContributions page in MediaWiki before 1.23.10, 1.24.x before 1.24.3, and 1.25.x before 1.25.2 allows remote attackers to determine if an IP is autoblocked via the "Change block" text.

CVE-2015-6728
Published: 2015-09-01
The ApiBase::getWatchlistUser function in MediaWiki before 1.23.10, 1.24.x before 1.24.3, and 1.25.x before 1.25.2 does not perform token comparison in constant time, which allows remote attackers to guess the watchlist token and bypass CSRF protection via a timing attack.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Another Black Hat is in the books and Dark Reading was there. Join the editors as they share their top stories, biggest lessons, and best conversations from the premier security conference.