[thebigshane]

Both #2 and #3 are addressed in the bill as well. http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers...

For #2 see: No Duty to Monitor, No Technology Mandates and No Impact on Security or Integrity in Section 2 Savings and Severability Clauses, and then Service Providers in Section 102. My paraphrasing: Service Provider is not required to actively monitor, design their service to "forestall or prevent acts that would actually or potentially create a cause of action".

For #3 see: Enforcement of Orders in Section 102. My paraphrasing: Attorney General may bring an action for "injunctive relief" against any product or service that is designed or marketed for the purpose of enabling a domain name affected by this act. I think MAFIAAfire and DeSOPA both apply here but a general DNS cacher/sharer may not apply since they could be said to have different purposes than just bypassing SOPA/ICE/ProtectIP.

So, yeah, some people can be affected negatively, but I think they have put in some effort to address the issues you bring up while still being able to carry out their mission of targeting foreign sites dedicated to infringing and profiting off of copyrighted works.

I am not a lawyer, this is only my best attempt of explaining the bill which I have read now a few times.