From the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation):
US Trade Office Calls ACTA Back From the Dead and Canada Complies

But does it have any teeth? A long time ago some **AA type was saying that he was in it for the long game, so yeah maybe we beat SOPA, but they would just introduce another one.

Congress custard.
CISPA's second serving is even worse than the first

demandprogress.org asks for action to block CFAA, in a circular email:

Already posted here: http://www.donationcoder.com/forum/index.php?topic=34560.0

IsoHunt Wants Jury to Rule on Free Speech Issues in MPAA Case
April 6, 2013

Last month BitTorrent site isoHunt lost its appeal against the MPAA, meaning that the site has to continue filtering movie and TV related terms from its search engine. However, isoHunt founder Gary Fung is not giving up just yet and has asked for a jury to decide on the case. In a petition filed this week isoHunt argues that, among other things, the Ninth Circuit decision chills innovation and threatens free speech online.

mpaa isohuntFor more than seven years isoHunt and the MPAA have been battling in court, and it’s not over yet.

In 2010 the District Court ordered the owner of isoHunt to start censoring the site’s search engine based on a list of thousands of keywords provided by the MPAA, or cease its operations entirely in the US.

IsoHunt hoped to overturn this ruling in an appeal, but last month the Ninth Circuit upheld the decision of the lower court, ruling that the website does not qualify for safe harbor protection under the DMCA.

For now this means that the keyword filter stays in place, but for isoHunt founder Gary Fung this is not the end of the matter. This week isoHunt’s legal team petitioned the court for a re-hearing before a jury.

Among other things, isoHunt argues that the current verdict chills innovation and threatens free speech on the Internet.

“Fung contends that many of the items of evidence cited by the District Court should be protected as Free Speech under the First Amendment to the Constitution and would be inadmissible at trial. As a result of decisions herein, impermissible burdens are being imposed on Fung’s speech and on the speech of other Internet users,” the petition reads.

The MPAA used quotes from isoHunt’s founder dating back to 2003, to argue that he was aware of and liable for copyright infringing use of the site. As evidence the MPAA cited the following statements made by Fung in a forum thread discussing the RIAA.

“Agreed. they accuse us for thieves, and they r right. Only we r ‘stealing’ from the leechers (them!) and not the originators (artists),” Fung wrote.

IsoHunt’s founder later updated the IRC announce bot to say: “Files… are now being indexed for isoHunt.com…We completely OPPOSE RIAA & Co., so do not be alarmed by our indexing activities.”

In its petition for a re-hearing isoHunt argues that when these isolated statements are used to determine liability, without any connection to direct infringements, this could “severely chill free speech” and threaten innovation.

“The effect of decisions herein is to make sarcasm directed at copyright enforcement or statements in support of file-sharing a reason for later imposition of liability. Cautious individuals will practice self-censorship. Outspoken individuals will avoid certain areas of technological development,” isoHunt’s legal team writes.

The free speech concerns are not the only issue raised by isoHunt. The petition also contends that there is no evidence that isohunt’s founder promoted or facilitated direct copyright infringements.

In addition, the petition protests the ruling that Fung should not be entitled to safe harbor protection under the DMCA because he knew that isoHunt users were sharing copyrighted material. According to isoHunt’s legal team this goes directly against verdicts in other cases, such as the dispute between YouTube and Viacom.

With a re-hearing before a jury isoHunt is confident it can win the case as that will provide an opportunity to counter specific allegations of copyright infringement. If this request is granted the case is expected to continue for a few more years, perhaps making it to its 10th anniversary in 2016.

...
Around the world, governments are attempting to remake the Web and the greater Internet in their own traditional images.

They have significant resources that can be brought to bear, especially when they succeed in redefining Internet-based freedom of speech as national security risks. Shackles, cells, even firing squads and other lethal methodologies are at their disposal.

Increasingly, we see vague and often highly suspect claims of "cyberwar" being bandied about as a predicate at least for vast diversions of power and money to the "cyberscare-industrial complex" -- and even as potential justifications for cyber or physical retaliations against the designated enemies of the moment.

We see this same class of fear tactics being deployed to justify government scanning of private computing and communications facilities, demands for purpose-built surveillance of encrypted communications systems that actually make these systems more vulnerable to black-hat hacking, and a range of other demands from authorities. Since the big cyber-security bucks are now in play, it's understandable why authorities would prefer to concentrate on theoretical computer-based infrastructure risks, rather than the very real risk of explosives in some empty desert area being used to bring down critical high voltage transmission towers.

With cybersecurity as with so much else, "money is honey."

In context, it's obvious that whether we're talking about overbearing government security services apparently using China and North Korea as their new operating paradigms, or the 21st century version of traditional power and money grabs via fear tactics deluxe, we can't help but return to the fact that governments are trying on various fronts to maintain their old authoritarian models of security and censorship in the new world of ubiquitous Internet communications.

And while today's story involved France and Wikipedia, these are only really placeholders of the moment that can be easily substituted with other countries and other organizations -- or individuals -- going forward.

The best of times, the worst of times. We dare not permit the distraction of seeming clowns in the foreground to blind us from the sharp and shiny falling blades of censorship and surveillance lurking just behind, aimed directly at our figurative (and in some horrific cases perhaps quite literal) naked necks.

Congress Wants to Make CFAA Penalities Worse -- We Need to Stop Them
Last week, Congress put forth a bill that would dangerously expand computer crime law to double or even triple the penalties prosecutors could use to threaten computer users -- people like digital rights activist Aaron Swartz. We've got to stop them and tell them this law needs real reform to protect visionary, talented, justice-driven individuals like Aaron. We're pulling out all the stops this week, and we need your help. We need the Internet to speak out with a voice so loud legislators have no choice but to listen.

Here's the game plan:

We have built a Twitter tool  https://cfaa.eff.org/ that helps you to tweet at legislators. Staffers count these messages, so please tweet lots.
Call the House Judiciary Committee. We've collected their numbers and prepared an easy-to-follow script https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/why-its-important-call-your-representative-about-cfaa-reform-and-aarons-law for the phone call. If you've never called your legislators before, today is the day to start.
Change your Twitter icon to reflect that you're taking part in this cause. We've created an image https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/04/help-us-remember-aaron-swartz-participating-our-week-action-demanding-congress that can help spread the word.
Finally, if you haven't yet, please take our action alert https://eff.org/aarons-law to e-mail Congress about the specific changes we'd like to see in a reformed CFAA.
Congress can't get this right unless they hear from you. Please join us in taking action today.

^^ Yes, people seem to be waking up to this, albeit belatedly.
For example: CISPA Amendment Proves Everyone's Fears Were Justified While Failing To Assuage Them

16 April 2013 10:55

...It's on.

In anticipation of a full House vote in the House on Wednesday, industry giant IBM has sent nearly 200 senior execs to Washington to lobby in support of CISPA.

And their intentions couldn't be more clear. CISPA would empower them to share your private data with the military without a warrant -- and they wouldn't hesitate to do so.

Chris Padilla, IBM's VP of governmental affairs told TheHill.com that IBM and other corporations "should be able to work directly and share information directly"  with the National Security Agency "because that's where the expertise is."

We have to stop this bill from becoming law and eviscerating our hard-won civil liberties and privacy rights. Click here to urge your reps to oppose CISPA on Wednesday.

Despite an outpouring of opposition from the ACLU, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and over 100,000 Demand Progress members, the House Intelligence committee has voted to approve CISPA--a cyber-security bill that would give companies unprecedented power to share your private information with the government, including the intelligence agencies like the NSA, without a warrant.

Now the bill moves to the House for a full vote on Wednesday. We need to reiterate our opposition to this dangerous legislation loud and clear.

Click here to tell your representatives to protect online privacy and oppose CISPA on Wednesday.

Our collective efforts stopped CISPA from becoming law last year, and we can do it again. But we must be vigilant and keep putting our representatives on notice.

Now, as before, we cannot sacrifice our hard-won liberties and privacy rights in the pursuit of a misguided and over-broad conception of "security."

Click here to urge your representatives in Congress to oppose CISPA on Wednesday.

Thanks,
-Demand Progress

• (a) It looks like the Obama administration are wanting to block this CISPA legislation that could threaten to erode citizens' statutory rights - whereas the same administration is at the same time apparently intent on shoving through other legislation that would ... threaten to reduce citizens' statutory rights!?
  Is this some kind of "good cop, bad cop" play?
  
• (b) Some people (not me you understand) might say that a senator who would malign in such a vitriolic and despising way any opponents to his proposed legislation to erode citizens' statutory rights would seem to be acting unprofessionally and against the interests of citizens, and that may indicate that he has a vested interest in the proposals getting pushed through - but I couldn't possibly comment.