General guideline I find helpful in my posting: In discussing a topic like this, I find it's helpful to read what I've written and ask myself, "Is this more useful information or is it more outrage?" If it's the latter, I don't post, because outrage is kind of a given and doesn't add much. (I mean, sure, express outrage to your representatives, but they are not reading Hacker News.)
Oh, I'm sure it's totally an accident that this bill would hurt people trying to make government more transparent and help companies who give large sums of money to politicians. Totally.
It's just a bad accident, I'm sure they wouldn't use it at all in ways it wasn't intended. There are americans to protect, and some of them -- the ones who have lots of money but can't be bothered to use it to learn how to make their business models viable in this century -- need extra protection. Sadly, even from other hardworking americans who have gone astray and decided their god-given position as peon best used for animal labor and cannon fodder isn't good enough anymore. It's a tough time, and those at the bottom must make sacrifices for those at the top. It's the American dream!
IANAL but from reading it literally; It seems that the bill goes the other way too, in actually granting the power to take down the companies for 'misappropriation' of 'personally identifiable information'.
Since EFF claims this would 'bypass all existing laws', it looks like sovereign immunity laws won't apply. Therefore it's possible to take down the government websites, again, for 'misappropriation' of 'personally identifiable information'.
Maybe, but you have to ask, who will win in any power struggle? I am willing to bet that between ISPs, consumers, and the government, it is consumers. In particular here, it is consumers who are the losers here power-wise, and so.....
One of the reasons why overbroad laws are a problem is that they set up a "show me the man and I'll find you the crime" system.
Sovereign immunity laws seem to have a habit of always applying. And will often rise, like zombies, despite repeated attempts to kill them off.
All it comes down to really is that sovereign immunity laws are written by the people who control the guns, to protect the people who control the guns.
So they are going to apply in as many circumstances as possible. And even when they don't, they probably still will.
Sovereign Immunity only applies to tort law at least in the US, right?
In which case, I fail to see how that even applies here. It might allow ISPs to block government web sites on some suspicion. But would an ISP do so? I doubt it.
