12:49 PM

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.)

2 of 2
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
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.
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
Current Issue
Dark Reading Tech Digest September 7, 2015
Some security flaws go beyond simple app vulnerabilities. Have you checked for these?
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
Published: 2015-10-09
The Telephony component in Apple OS X before 10.11, when the Continuity feature is enabled, allows local users to bypass intended telephone-call restrictions via unspecified vectors.

Published: 2015-10-09
The Safari Extensions implementation in Apple Safari before 9 does not require user confirmation before replacing an installed extension, which has unspecified impact and attack vectors.

Published: 2015-10-09
The API in the WebKit Plug-ins component in Apple Safari before 9 does not provide notification of an HTTP Redirection (aka 3xx) status code to a plugin, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended request restrictions via a crafted web site.

Published: 2015-10-09
The Intel Graphics Driver component in Apple OS X before 10.11 allows local users to gain privileges or cause a denial of service (memory corruption) via unspecified vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2015-5877.

Published: 2015-10-09
The Login Window component in Apple OS X before 10.11 does not ensure that the screen is locked at the intended time, which allows physically proximate attackers to obtain access by visiting an unattended workstation.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
What can the information security industry do to solve the IoT security problem? Learn more and join the conversation on the next episode of Dark Reading Radio.