Sigh, friends don't let politicians write tech laws

Michael Thomas mike at mtcc.com
Fri Jul 29 22:30:23 UTC 2022


On 7/29/22 2:57 PM, Anne Mitchell wrote:
>
>> On Jul 29, 2022, at 3:37 PM, John Levine <johnl at iecc.com> wrote:
>>
>> It appears that Michael Thomas <mike at mtcc.com> said:
>>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4409/text?r=9&s=1
>>>
>>> the body of the proposed law:
>> This bill was filed by a bunch of the usual right wing suspects about
>> a month ago.  It was referred to committee, like all filed bills, and
>> I very much doubt it will ever emerge.
> I'm inclined to agree, except that as we've seen Google has already attempted to cave, which means that they (the bills' sponsors) will feel even more emboldened, and can point to Google's "pilot program" as evidence that "even Google admits there is a problem, so we need the law to make the other big providers do it."
>
> I believe we can't rely on it being buried without a little help.  It costs nothing to send an email to a representative, so..why not provide that help. ;~)
>
Really? It's completely unworkable. What would even constitute "compliance"?

Mike



More information about the NANOG mailing list