Here's an idea. On some web site that congress critters all visit, place a link to an ISIS web site. Be sure to use phishing and social engineering techniques to ensure that a significant number of congress critters will click on it.
Overnight a large number of congress critters become felons. Hey, they all visited an ISIS web site. They should all go to jail.
US warrants against Megaupload are different. That is about copyright. Therefore silly notions of due process, evidence, laws, or the constitution do not apply.
Megaupload was simply Hollywood's temper tantrum the day after the internet went dark, exposing SOPA. As the bright light of news coverage shone on SOPA, its supporters distanced themselves, slinking back into the shadows.
Terrorists may use encryption, they may use it poorly, or not at all. Or they may then reveal an encrypted communication after the fact, not thinking.
But you are missing the real issue about Going Dark.
American Citizens are increasingly Going Dark by using encryption. For everyone's protection, decryption must be very easy, or even unnecessary for even the dumbest of cops. This makes it easier to access everything about your private life when looking for something to charge you with.
A system can scrape content from a web site without disrupting it. Facebook is happy to have Google send robots to visit their site. Facebook simply doesn't like this other company visiting their site.
This is very different than someone disrupting the operation of a walk in store.
Whether or not Power should visit Facebook's site, the CFAA is a law that has, is and will be abused. Unlike trespassing law.
Re: Swedes are in Denial about the occupational government
I almost quit watching CNN after the total lack of SOPA coverage, and then sudden begrudging coverage once they had no choice.
I did quit in 2013 after the totally uncritical one sided coverage of Snowden.
I have since become aware that there are foreign media outlets that sometimes cover things not even discussed in US media. Or that is drowned out by US media coverage of the rantings of presidential candidate Cheeto face.
Please do not call dinosaur monopolists "the tech industry".
If there were competition, then wireless providers would find it in their highest interests to invest in tech in order to either beat the competition to market, or to not fall too far behind the competition. The government would not have to do anything.
Threats to withhold 5G simply show how they are willing to misuse monopoly power to harm consumers. Yes harm. Being able to violate net neutrality hurts everyone. The fact that they want to do so says a lot. It's not only that they want to overcharge for service, its that they want to interfere, manipulate, and spy on your traffic. And advantage and disadvantage various internet sites who all pay their own bandwidth bills on their end of the connection.
If this is about Netflix, then here is a free clue. If Netflix is using too much bandwidth from my home, then CHARGE ME FOR THAT. It's not Netflix using that much bandwidth. It's ME. It's not my neighbor who doesn't use Netflix. And it's not Netflix either. Netflix doesn't just force a large bandwidth stream into my house unbidden. And Netflix pays handsomely for their own end of the connection, just as I should pay for my end of the connection. Somebody has to pay for my end of the connection. Being able to violate net neutrality is just a way to distort these costs so that some providers have to subsidize my end of the connection, while others don't, so that the mobile provider's service falsely appears to be cheaper than it would be.
It's easy to sit behind a computer screen and defend monopolists and suggest they should be able to get away what whatever outrageous behavior they want to.
The government can make a counter threat. The government can threaten to do two things, both of which would be good for everyone, except monopolistic, lazy gatekeepers:
1. Make net neutrality the law 2. Open the markets to competition, no more monopolies, so that everyone will get fast internet at the best prices where the providers can still make a profit
The real problem is that monopoly providers simply do not know how to operate as a real business and compete. They couldn't compete their way out of a paper bag. Witness what happened in the early '80's when long distance was opened to other players: lower prices, more choices, and better quality. It was good for everyone, except AT&T's over priced monopoly.
(oh wait, I forgot to write something cynical or sarcastic here.)
Since no artists were involved in the lack of sales, and consequent drop in culture, no artists need to get paid. The culture tax can go into a fund for starving record and motion picture company executives.
The culture tax needs to be adjusted for their cost of living. We simply can't have them in a cardboard box on the street eating caviar and smoking cigars lit by $100 bills.
No artists were harmed in the making of the lack of culture.
Re: "Oh that's just for the worst of the worst..."
A ten year sentence for copyright infringement is GUARANTEED to get misused. It's a handy-dandy catch all. Like CFAA.
You want to nail someone for something, well because! They might have spoken harshly to a government agent.
"Even though we couldn't nail you with any actual crime, we did an intensive investigation onto every single computing device in your life, and we managed to find one song which you don't seem to have a license for. And the penalty for that is good enough for what we really wanted to get you for, but couldn't find any actual evidence that you are guilty of."
I don't think he makes that much any more. He works for Sony, a major copyright holder. That $320,000 number is out of date. By now, he and all other lawyers and executives have drastically cut their salaries so that actual artists can get some money. And when you understand how everyone in the motion picture industry is so deeply filled with humility, he and other lawyers and execs don't want anyone to know just how little money they make today, and so they would like to to (mis)use the police state apparatus to censor that information. Nothing to see here.
It's not just punitive. It's about getting everyone to respect copyright.
Ten Year jail sentences would really get people to start respecting copyright. If the sentences were increased to several decades of one's life for downloading that song, then I could see how the public's respect for copyright would grow into a deep admiration and even adoration for copyright.
Now if these jail sentences could come with the lack of any due process that usually goes hand in hand with copyright, then I think this will seriously improve the respect everyone has for copyright.
And warden's, guards, and corporate prison executives need to get paid! Jails need to be kept at full capacity for maximum profitability.
Copyright is a useful tool towards that end. Especially if you don't need real evidence. And ESPECIALLY if you don't need due process.
Copyright should be the pre-eminent concern of our world today. If we can just strengthen copyright with an automated takedown and drive-thru trial on the way to jail, then the solutions to all of the other problems the world faces would simply fall into place and everything would be a paradise.
If 10 year sentences don't put a stop to piracy, then try 100 year sentences. If that doesn't work, try 200 year sentences. Similarly, if raising the age for smoking cigarettes to 21 doesn't stop teen smoking, then raise the age to 25. If that doesn't stop teen smoking then raise the legal age to 30. Etc.