Authors: and David Moon Patrick Ruffini David Segal
Tags: #Bisac Code 1: POL035000
Hacking Politics: How Geeks, Progressives, the Tea Party, Gamers, Anarchists, and Suits Teamed Up to Defeat SOPA and Save the Internet (33 page)
DAVID SEGAL AND DAVID MOON
In mid-January members of President Barack Obama’s administration delivered a serious blow to SOPA/PIPA by announcing their opposition to the bills on the White House blog. The administration had recently launched a new website allowing Internet users to create online petitions to the President, and officials promised a response to any efforts that quickly generated at least twenty-five thousand signatures.
On December 18, 2011 a petition emerged with the title, “VETO the SOPA bill and any other future bills that threaten to diminish the free flow of information.” In a short period, fifty-one thousand six hundred eighty-nine people signed the petition and triggered a response from three key administration figures: Victoria Espinel, Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator; Aneesh Chopra, U.S. Chief Technology Officer; and Howard Schmidt, Special Assistant to the President.
On January 14, 2012, the three Obama officials wrote that the administration would “not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cybersecurity risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.” The increasingly hobbled SOPA/PIPA bills now faced public opposition from the White House.
On January 14, 2012, the Obama administration responded to a petition against SOPA/PIPA with a post on the White House Blog. Three key administration officials stated that they would not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression.
What many did not know was that Obama’s team had been signaling their concerns with SOPA/PIPA for a month or two prior. In late November, Demand Progress reached out to the White House, and received a surprisingly gracious response. After months of email campaigns, phone calls, and public criticism of the pair of legislative proposals, our coalition of Internet freedom advocates was granted a December 9th meeting with Espinel. Our conversation buttressed a series of face-to-face discussions between White House officials and concerned venture capitalists and web platform proprietors.
We pulled in groups like Avaaz, MoveOn, and Reporters Without Borders, delivered hundreds of thousands of petition signatures to the Obama administration, and expressed our concerns about the various free speech and human rights implications of SOPA/PIPA. It was a bit surreal to find ourselves invited to the Executive Office Building to meet with White House staff after months of insistence by insiders that our pleas were falling upon deaf ears. But we could tell at our December meeting that the bureaucrats were beginning to actually listen to what we were saying. Somewhat to our surprise, this was more than a perfunctory endeavor whose purpose was simply to check off the box next to “meet with those annoying activists” on the White House’s to do list.
For example, our sit-down with Espinel was attended not only by her colleagues with intellectual property-related job titles, but also by officials like Carl Shapiro, then a member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers. The grouping of Obama officials asked our ragtag coalition of free speech advocates
to cite which portions of SOPA/PIPA we saw as particularly problematic and gauged our support for various potential fixes. The day after the meeting, I contacted a reporter about the interaction and noted that I thought the White House officials “showed genuine interest in hearing what the groups had to say.” As it turns out, they ended up siding with our side. It’s hard to know exactly how these decisions were made, to what extent the various in-person meetings might have had an impact above and beyond the regular rhythm of emails, petitions, and concerned phone calls the White House was receiving. But with the focus of hindsight, this feels like a healthy reminder that taking the online protests offline can sometimes be a useful exercise.
White House IP Czar Victoria Espinel (top, center) was presented with petition signatures against SOPA/PIPA from millions of Internet users on December 9, 2011. Espinel along with other administration figures like Carl Shapiro from President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisors (bottom, left) listened to concerns from Demand Progress’ David Segal (bottom, right) and other public advocates.
A few weeks later we received a note from Espinel as the White House released its statement:
David—thanks again for organizing the group you put in. We just put out an official response to the concerns raised in We the People that I think you will be interested in.
Demand Progress has been, and will remain, a vocal critic of the Obama White House relative to its record on a number of civil liberties issues: from the extension of warrantless wiretapping authorities to its support for the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act; from its drone wars to its defense of the recently enacted power to indefinitely detain civilians without charge or trial. But the administration deserves credit for the even-handed manner in which it addressed activists’ concerns about SOPA/PIPA and for its eventual opposition to the bill. White House response to anti-SOPA/PIPA petition:
COMBATINC ONLINE PIRACY WHILE PROTECTING AN OPEN AND INNOVATIVE INTERNET
By Victoria Espinel, Aneesh Chopra, and Howard Schmidt
Thanks for taking the time to sign this petition. Both your words and actions illustrate the importance of maintaining an open and democratic Internet.
Right now, Congress is debating a few pieces of legislation concerning the very real issue of online piracy, including the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), the PROTECT IP Act, and the Online Protection and Digital ENforcement Act (OPEN). We want to take this opportunity to tell you what the Administration will support—and what we will not support. Any effective legislation should reflect a wide range of stakeholders, including everyone from content creators to the engineers that build and maintain the infrastructure of the Internet.
While we believe that online piracy by foreign websites is a serious problem that requires a serious legislative response, we will not support legislation that reduces freedom of expression, increases cyber security risk, or undermines the dynamic, innovative global Internet.
Any effort to combat online piracy must guard against the risk of online censorship of lawful activity and must not inhibit innovation by our dynamic businesses large and small. Across the globe, the openness of the Internet is increasingly central to innovation in business, government, and society and it must be protected. To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity. Any provision covering Internet intermediaries such as online advertising networks, payment processors, or search engines must be transparent and designed to prevent overly broad private rights of action that could encourage unjustified litigation that could discourage startup businesses and innovative firms from growing.
We must avoid creating new cybersecurity risks or disrupting the underlying architecture of the Internet. Proposed laws must not tamper with the technical architecture of the Internet through manipulation of the Domain Name System (DNS), a foundation of Internet security. Our analysis of the DNS filtering provisions in some proposed legislation suggests that they pose a real risk to cybersecurity and yet leave contraband goods and services accessible online. We must avoid legislation that drives users to dangerous, unreliable DNS servers and puts next-generation security policies, such as the deployment of DNSSEC, at risk.
Let us be clear—online piracy is a real problem that harms the American economy, threatens jobs for significant numbers of middle class workers and hurts some of our nation’s most creative and innovative companies and entrepreneurs. It harms everyone from struggling artists to production crews, and from startup social media companies to large movie studios. While we are strongly committed to the vigorous enforcement of intellectual property rights, existing tools are not strong enough to root out the worst online pirates beyond our borders. That is why the Administration calls on all sides to work together to pass sound legislation this year that provides prosecutors and rights holders new legal tools to combat online piracy originating beyond U.S. borders while staying true to the principles outlined above in this response. We should never let criminals hide behind a hollow embrace of legitimate American values.
This is not just a matter for legislation. We expect and encourage all private parties, including both content creators and Internet platform providers working together, to adopt voluntary measures and best practices to reduce online piracy.
So, rather than just look at how legislation can be stopped, ask yourself: Where do we go from here? Don’t limit your opinion to what’s the wrong thing to do, ask yourself what’s right. Already, many members of Congress are asking for public input around the issue. We are paying close attention to those opportunities, as well as to public input to the Administration.
The organizer of this petition and a random sample of the signers will be invited to a conference call to discuss this issue further with Administration officials and soon after that, we will host an online event to get more input and answer your questions. Details on that will follow in the coming days.
Washington needs to hear your best ideas about how to clamp down on rogue websites and other criminals who make money off the creative efforts of American artists and rights holders. We should all be committed to working with all interested constituencies to develop new legal tools to protect global intellectual property rights without jeopardizing the openness of the Internet. Our hope is that you will bring enthusiasm and know-how to this important challenge.
Moving forward, we will continue to work with Congress on a bipartisan basis on legislation that provides new tools needed in the global fight against piracy and counterfeiting, while vigorously defending an open Internet based on the values of free expression, privacy, security and innovation. Again, thank you for taking the time to participate in this important process. We hope you’ll continue to be part of it.
Victoria Espinel is Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator at Office of Management and Budget
Aneesh Chopra is the U.S. Chief Technology Officer and Assistant to the President and Associate Director for Technology at the Office of Science and Technology Policy
Howard Schmidt is Special Assistant to the President and Cybersecurity Coordinator for National Security Staff
DEREK SLATER
Derek Slater is a Policy Manager on Google’s public policy team, where he helped lead Google’s anti-SOPA advocacy strategy. He supports the company’s global advocacy efforts on innovation policy, including copyright and telecom. Derek has been writing about digital media since he bought a Diamond Rio PMP300 MP3 player as a teenager. This contribution reflects his opinions, rather than those of Google. It’s adapted from an essay he wrote immediately after the White House released its statement on SOPA/PIPA
.
