Monitored Alarm Systems

group held a round table on the last soup, which is worth listening to. But one point that struck me in particular. We noted in the past ridiculously complicated language in the bill, which makes any site, "dedicated to the theft of goods in the United States" if "you are taking or have taken deliberate steps to avoid confirming a high probability of use of the United States and led the site to perform the acts that constitute "a violation. During the debate, supporters argued that no special provision SOUP, because you have to take" deliberate action " .

But let's be clear here. The "deliberate action" which is to take do not . Think about it, and how easy it is to abuse. How do you show that someone was a deliberate action of inaction? You just show that he took no action. You have a problem double negative here. The reality

is that this provision means "you must take action." Not taking action is seen as a deliberate action "to prevent the confirmation" of this "high probability". Basically, any site that does not want to deal with

great responsibility

This could make your site disappear and all partners of their income cut, simply
have begin to proactively monitor. If no action is taken , who are accused of deliberately chose not to take action.

Find best price for : --SOPA----Caucus----Internet--