Kevin Rothrock has fired off a response to my critical blog about his post on the troubling new Internet law.
He publishes a picture of the infamous "troll face" meme which should really apply to him, and of course then tries to discredit me as being a "troll" and even calls me "an hero of our tiem," referencing an even creepier Anonymous/4chan meme of "an hero" related to harassing parents of a teenager who committed suicide. Ugh. The creep factor is always high with this one.
His response rings the predictable chimes and uses the typical Bolshevik methods of arguing (some of which have come to be called "Saul Alinsky" methods).
o find a person or idea the target of the attack is affiliated with or likes, and show that they have in fact an idea or position antithetical to the target (hence, Ludmila Alexeyeva, one of my heroines in life, who signed a statement of concern about the proposed law which mentions the "dangers of SOPA" -- even though, of course, her main and longtime concern is the context of lack of the Russian judicial independence, not some failed anti-piracy legislation in the US).
o find some bad act or association that the target has praised or justified, and try to turn it against them (hence, the reference to Ilya Ponomaryev, who I said behaved honourably in the last year, defending Udaltsov, a communist and even Stalinist -- although of course he deserved to be defended, and by me included, on grounds of human rights principles).
o claim the person is uninformed or misread the text or is ignorant, rather than simply disagreeing (hence, a nerdy quibble about the timing of Ponomaryev's statement and what that signified, as he went from endorsing the handling of the issue by a non-governmental group to endorsing it being handled by a government agency).
o completely remain silent on the central point of my critique, the appalling callous and craven representation of the Bastrykin affair as something that wasn't the awful direct threat that it was, but something where by Bastrykin was "set up" by his enemies (!) or really the fault of the media or Novaya Gazeta's ostensibly timidity in accepting the patch-up. Disgraceful!
I replied, and kept a copy because it's the kind of thing he deletes.
Let's go over some more what Ponomaryev says, although this is really for my other blog, Minding Russia.
Я убеждён, что сегодня мы нашли очень хороший компромисс между государственным вмешательством и саморегулированием. Государственное вмешательство подразумевало бы, что будет создано некое специальное ведомство или существующее ведомство было бы наделено какими-то особыми полномочиями, для того чтобы вмешиваться в то, что происходит в компьютерной сети.
I'm convinced that today we have found a good compromise between state intervention and self-regulation. State intervention would mean that some special agency will be created or some existing agency will be endowed with some special powers in order to intervene with what is happening on the computer network.
So that tells us how Ponomaryev sees this -- as a compromise, but (for him) an acceptable one. Originally he endorsed having the non-governmental group handle it as somehow more acceptable to the "community"; he came around to a compromise of having a government agency do this, but if you read his speech, you see that he is trying to put this government agency's new tasks in the best possible light.
The problem with having more self-regulation that is still accountable under law, and not merely left totally to self-regulation, is that instantly the copyleftists and lawless anarchists say that this is creating "collective guilt" or "undue burden" on Internet service providers. Oh, nonsense. In the US, they already have this responsibility to comply with their own TOS which already outlaws piracy and child pornography. They just don't comply with their own TOS which is why certain forces them begin to lobby for a national law. The idea that providers can't be tasked with removals or they lose their safe harbour and common carrier status is also hugely hilarious now that Google is in the censorship and GlavLit business, receiving requests to take down items under the law or the TOS *and doing so*.
Ponomaryev then says something I would say any day of the week:
В Интернете нельзя делать ровно того же, что нельзя делать и в обычной жизни: в Интернете нельзя красть, в Интернете нельзя оскорблять друг друга, в Интернете нельзя распространять порнографию.
On the Internet, you can't do exactly the same things you can't do in ordinary life: you can't steal on the Internet; you can't insult another person on the Internet; you can't distribute pornography on the Internet.
Well, he says "insult," which is precisely one of those overbroad terms of the Russian Criminal Code that in the American context with have a far more narrow jurisprudence around it with the prosecution of libel. But no matter: the spirit of what he is saying is correct: the Internet is not special, and it falls under the law.
Then another context that's important to see -- Ponomaryev then addresses ISPs as colleagues in this venture, as collaborators or people he sees as peers which he has been trying to placate in this process:
«Если вы видите, что на вашей сети размещена та или иная информация, сами примите меры для того, чтобы этой информации не было. Если вы будете принимать эти меры, то тогда мы обязуемся как государство не применять никакие меры государственного регулирования, на вас не наезжать, вас не закрывать, вас не штрафовать» и так далее. Таким образом, мы вводим принцип саморегулирования отрасли.
If you see that on your n twork there is this or that information placed, then take measures so that that information disappears. If you take those measures, then we as the government pledge not to take any measures of state regulation, not to raid you, not to shut you down, not to fine you" and so on. Thus we introduce the principle of self-regulation of the industry.
He means "unlawful information". Well, if you only have 24 hours to respond to a notice, that's hardly fair and hardly self-regulation as it would be properly understood. Indeed, there will be problems with this law, in its milder or harsher form, *in the Russian judicial context* which isn't fair or just.
As for claiming I "didn't assail him for burying the story" of how the "hero-IT" folk of Russia protested this "for weeks," I did in fact denounce GV on Twitter for not covering this, several days ago, and waited to do a longer blog -- it's been on my to-do list for ages to call out this awful choice of the GV leadership to put a pro-Kremlin blogger in this position, but I just had other things to do.
I also want to note while I'm at it that the notion that the Internet will be "slowed down" by blocking DNS, etc. -- I just don't buy it. I've discussed these issues surrounding copyright, digital rights management, etc. etc. with engineers quite a bit over the years.
The fact is, all kinds of malware and other types of sites get blocked and get notices piled up on them not to enter them and get warnings on various internal geek organizations and so on. Blocking a site may slow down the viewing of that viewer, but the notion that somehow "the Internet" as a whole "slows down" because certain sites aren't put in search just doesn't wash. I find no credible defense of this mystical notion, and it comes only from those vehemently opposed to SOPA, not credible third parties.
It's important to read the non-hysterical commentary from real engineers on the DNS issue, such as from Richard Bennett. He was one of the few lone voices talking about how SOPA's mandate to block sites wouldn't "break the Internet". As he points out, it's not as if browsers are going to be "casting around" after they fail to resolve one blocked URL. And there are solutions for this as a reader puts in the comments that make it even more efficient.
Also note the point that one of the letter-signers is an inventor of the blocking-technology and really should know better.
Recent Comments