Similar to what I have previously expressed concerning the blatant disregard of corporation concerning “due process”; Art Butler (an attorney representing Americans for Fair Electronic Commerce Transactions (AFFECT)) stated in regards to Section 6(a) of S. 1625 — the Counter Spy Act that “It would allow the provider to set itself up as an ad hoc police force to conduct warrantless searches and to act as judge and jury to conduct unilateral seizures. Private entities do not and should not have the right to conduct law enforcement activities. More troubling is the fact that the language of Subsection 6(a)(10) would effectively allow a software provider to unilaterally decide to remotely shut down the user’s computer or Internet or other network connection or service. But whether the use of a particular software is ‘unauthorized,’ ‘fraudulent,’ or ‘illegal’ is often subject to legitimate dispute and merits some judicial consideration before a provider is allowed to unilaterally employ a drastic remedy like remote disablement.”

Antispammers are better at picking out poster boy spammers than copyright holders are at picking out poster boy defendants.

(The likely reason for the lameness with which copyright holder go after actual infringers is that generation after generation of DRM snake-oil sellers keep selling them on the idea that next year, the infringement isn’t going to be technically possible, so no need to put your best people to work on smacking today’s infringers.)