Cyber Intelligence Sharing Act/CISPA/Powers that be trying to go 1984 on us---again

In short: If the bill passes companies will be able to share any of your information with the government if the gov simply asks.

Of course, vagueness is included so anyone could be fucked.

I'm unsure if this was already posted, but fuck it. Best to be safe than sorry.

And to quote Goerge Carlin: ''Oh fuck, here we go again!''

TBF, this is 'Russia Today' which is hardly the most unbiased source :P

Though it does seem to have got hold of something legit.
Here's a slightly more in-depth look at the bill:

http://techfleece.com/2012/04/04/cispa-the-cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-heads-for-the-hill/

Looks as stupid as SOPA and ACTA. We'll be hearing more about this soon no doubt!

Oh joy, this again. Im sure this will go so well and there will be no anger, arguments or flamewars over this. The ME3 riot was just starting to die down too dammit.

......REALLY? *SIGH*

Why? WHY THE HELL?!

We already made it clear that we DO NOT WANT THIS KIND OF BS! We JUST got done protesting SOPA! WHY ARE THEY TRYING TO RAM IT DOWN OUR THROATS AGAIN SO SOON?!

I think it's now clear that the government in actuality only cares about screwing us over, and will sell us out the first second they can. And if we make a big enough fuss, they just rename the bill and submit it 3 months later when the hype dies down.

This sucks. It really does. >: (

Damn, I should used the search button before posting a thread about this on the Off-Topic section. No matter.
Here's another news source.

http://www.federalnewsradio.com/?nid=241&sid=2814402

Light the torches and sharpen the pitchforks, boys and girls. The internet needs defending once again.

Politicians. Why must we always threaten to come up there and defenestrate you before anything gets done? Just asking.

Well, at it again. Honestly, it's starting to feel like the intro to a cyberpunk-film of some description.

I'm reading the bill and... not really seeing a problem, except for the section that eliminates any legal recourse

EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY
No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in
Federal or State court against a protected entity,
self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an
officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self-
protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in
good faith-
(A) for using cybersecurity systems or
sharing information in accordance with this sec-
tion; or
(B) for not acting on information ob-
tained or shared in accordance with this sec-
tion.

I mean, aside from that much of this is what IS professionals and law enforcement do already in the course of their jobs. Part b, paragraph 2 might make vulnerability research and disclosure slightly more thorny but it'll probably only require some small change to disclosure policy.

I see absolutely nothing even approaching censorship in the bill. It's purely about sharing of information that is already gathered as part of any worthwhile investigation of online attacks.

The only connection it would seem to have with SOPA is a pronounceable acronym.

I'm confused. From the sounds of it, this act encourages companies to share information but there is no legal obligation attached to it. It's basically asking for an information hand out. Which is what companies can already do(though most choose not to), provided said company doesn't traffic in legally confidential information like medical records.

Russia Today... Hmm, admittedly, they dig deeper sometimes, but they also get their stuff wrong at times. Not commenting on this yet.

But does this mean we get 5 topics a day about this again untill it gets shot down?

Dear god, AGAIN!?

Can't other counties say "Stop messing with our Internet!", Face it, any change the US make affects all the Internet, that's why I hated SOPA, Congress tried to shut down a large part of a Global Network without asking anyone else. Just think of the Billion or so people that use US sites, only to be affected by something half of them will never hear of!

OneCatch :
TBF, this is 'Russia Today' which is hardly the most unbiased source :P

My news sources in order of Reliability:
BBC
Al-Jezeera
Russia Today
All of America...

Yeah... the US is a bad source for news... they are hardly critical of themselves apart from being critical of "the other party"... Russia Today should often be listened to at the same time as Al-Jezeera as if there is any bias (most sorrounding Russian interests in shady parts of the world but thats hardly better than the US) and the country AJ is located in is so small... they happily piss off every sorrounding them xD They also don't give a shit about their staff... plenty die in countries they aren't really meant to be in...

----------------------------

Interesting... I will keep an eye and an ear out for this...
Thanks for the heads up.

*waits for more data*

Nah, RT is very biased even on American issues. They're farther left than HuffPo and MSNBC's Ed Schultz and Lawrence O'Donnell. I have a feeling if I watched a bit more of them, I'd rate them right down there with Fox Noise.

So... can we just revolt already? I know this seems like a petty reason but we've seen so much crap in the last decade that some other countries would have protested through for days on end. OWS may have been a decent, if disorganised, start but the attempts to censor the internet are getting rather over the top.

Also, doesn't this seem somewhat hypocritical? Aren't the politicians always pointing to how evil China is for internet censorship and dictating people's lives?

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d112:h.r.3523:
The actual bill itself.

From what I have read the only possible similarity to SOPA is that it seems to perhaps allow an ISP to charge a company for "Cybersecurity" services which could include monitoring for illegal traffic that would include infringement of intellectual property rights. And that's just a maybe, it is not expressly stated. The portions dealing with this seem to read more like they are intended to cover "theft" of intellectual property from servers that are being protected by the "Cybersecurity" service.

Comando96:

OneCatch :
TBF, this is 'Russia Today' which is hardly the most unbiased source :P

My news sources in order of Reliability:
BBC
Al-Jezeera
Russia Today
All of America...

Yeah... the US is a bad source for news... they are hardly critical of themselves apart from being critical of "the other party"... Russia Today should often be listened to at the same time as Al-Jezeera as if there is any bias (most sorrounding Russian interests in shady parts of the world but thats hardly better than the US) and the country AJ is located in is so small... they happily piss off every sorrounding them xD They also don't give a shit about their staff... plenty die in countries they aren't really meant to be in...

I'm not a fan of the US press but, with a few notable exceptions (I'm looking at you Fox News), the problem isn't so much bias, it's simple lack of coverage.
RT is kind of the opposite; it's laughably biased, but has coverage of EVERYTHING!
I do use it though, the bias is so obvious it's easy to get around it.

My lists are:
UK - Beeb, guardian, new statesman
World - Beeb, al jazeera, RT, al arabiya

This is my opinion on CISPA from what I've read:

It's better than SOPA, but it's still bad. It still allows the possibility of people invading your privacy without any requirements, and it still allows the possibility that you could be branded a deviant by what you look at. Now, while SOPA would have done this outright, CISPA makes it worse because you don't know what company is or isn't going to be doing this.

We need an End CISPA campaign right now.

evilneko:
I'm reading the bill and... not really seeing a problem, except for the section that eliminates any legal recourse

EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY
No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in
Federal or State court against a protected entity,
self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an
officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self-
protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in
good faith-
(A) for using cybersecurity systems or
sharing information in accordance with this sec-
tion; or
(B) for not acting on information ob-
tained or shared in accordance with this sec-
tion.

So what it means is that we can't sue the motherfuckers back if they try to sue us?

Durgiun:

evilneko:
I'm reading the bill and... not really seeing a problem, except for the section that eliminates any legal recourse

EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY
No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in
Federal or State court against a protected entity,
self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an
officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self-
protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in
good faith-
(A) for using cybersecurity systems or
sharing information in accordance with this sec-
tion; or
(B) for not acting on information ob-
tained or shared in accordance with this sec-
tion.

So what it means is that we can't sue the motherfuckers back if they try to sue us?

It means that you may not sue the "Cybersecurity" service for providing information if it turns out to have been misappropriated so long as they acted in good faith and according to law. I do not believe it covers the people who may seek to sue or prosecute you. It just covers the middleman. Remember when the government demanded that the phone companies allow their questionable wire taps and then people tried suing the phone companies? That is the sort of thing it is protecting against.

edit: Sorry, it also covers the person attempting to obtain the information. I would imagine only on a right to privacy challenge. You obviously have the right to sue anyone who has misappropriated your information or brought false charges against you.

TheStatutoryApe:

Durgiun:

evilneko:
I'm reading the bill and... not really seeing a problem, except for the section that eliminates any legal recourse

So what it means is that we can't sue the motherfuckers back if they try to sue us?

It means that you may not sue the "Cybersecurity" service for providing information if it turns out to have been misappropriated so long as they acted in good faith and according to law. I do not believe it covers the people who may seek to sue or prosecute you. It just covers the middleman. Remember when the government demanded that the phone companies allow their questionable wire taps and then people tried suing the phone companies? That is the sort of thing it is protecting against.

edit: Sorry, it also covers the person attempting to obtain the information. I would imagine only on a right to privacy challenge. You obviously have the right to sue anyone who has misappropriated your information or brought false charges against you.

The powers that be a really adamant about taking away privacy. Makes me wish all the more for a plague to wipe out half the human population.

What the hell is wrong with these people? Why the hell do they keep banging on about ruling the internet? Nothing but a bunch of old farts trying to control a worldwide phenomenon. They simply hate the fact that the internet gives us a bit of freedom, freedom of speech and educates us (unless you troll on porn websites 24/7) and they're trying to control it because it has evolved beyond their expectations. There are other problems in the world than controlling what people are doing on the fucking internet! Stop trying to take it away from us!

http://www.officehell.co.uk/uploads/items/images/When-they-go-too-far-801.jpg

I think you Americans should now note:

Despite the efforts of the world in helping to remove SOPA and its kind and your government clearly understanding that the majority don't want it, they still persist.

What does that tell you? Your government no longer cares about and not only that it no longer cares about what you want or if know they don't represent you.

I really am sick of government bills being turned down just to be revieved in almost the same state because politicians do not care what people think about them, all they need is to have an ok few months just before their election and they'll still get back in.

As my mother always says: "It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government always gets in.."

Lord Kloo:
What does that tell you? Your government no longer cares about and not only that it no longer cares about what you want or if know they don't represent you.

Now that's where you're wrong. The American public wants such laws. The parties that created those plans still enjoy a lot of backing.

One can't just go 'yeah, let's blame the politicians' and be done with it.

Blablahb:

Lord Kloo:
What does that tell you? Your government no longer cares about and not only that it no longer cares about what you want or if know they don't represent you.

Now that's where you're wrong. The American public wants such laws. The parties that created those plans still enjoy a lot of backing.

One can't just go 'yeah, let's blame the politicians' and be done with it.

I'd second that. Oh, there may be many people who disagree, or who are stuck with choosing the lesser of two evils, but politicians are appealing to solid slabs of the masses.

evilneko:
I'm reading the bill and... not really seeing a problem, except for the section that eliminates any legal recourse

Thank god someone actually took the time out to read the bill this time instead of like what happened to SOPA and ACTA where everyone was spamming every channel of information with anti-SOPA rhetoric and no one seemed to have actually read it. They just assumed that it was bad because someone told them it was bad.My faith in humanity is restored.

Speaking of SOPA...

Yeah. Facepalm-worthy stuff there...

I am so tired right now, stuff like this only turns me into a greater cynic with a hope that one day, we will all die. I always wake up happy and optimistic with the energy to face the day but by nightfall, I just want it all to burn.

Comando96:

OneCatch :
TBF, this is 'Russia Today' which is hardly the most unbiased source :P

My news sources in order of Reliability:
BBC
Al-Jezeera
Russia Today
All of America...

Yeah... the US is a bad source for news... they are hardly critical of themselves apart from being critical of "the other party"... Russia Today should often be listened to at the same time as Al-Jezeera as if there is any bias (most sorrounding Russian interests in shady parts of the world but thats hardly better than the US) and the country AJ is located in is so small... they happily piss off every sorrounding them xD They also don't give a shit about their staff... plenty die in countries they aren't really meant to be in...

As a small gripe, I would like to propose that BBC be moved to below Russia Today and Al-Jezeera, as it has lost all reputation it used to have for being balanced news, for cogs sake, it lacks news most days. It is more sitting on the sofa with heat magazines opinion polls.

Russia Today often picks up the more important, and obviously also the Russian, news around the world and is the one I tune the TV onto during the day, and also the pub TV when i'm working as most of the regulars us it instead of BBC and Sky. I am British/English just to clarify.

More on Topic; CISPA, the ConDems' internet surveillance and the constant throng of government bodies seeking to legislate the "Wild West" of the Internet is dangerous, needs pursuing and should be eagerly discouraged. The fact that everyone is becoming rather weary is rather scary and disconcerting as we are the young and virile ones and are going to be lumbered with the repurcussions of this.

Please don't give up even if it does turn into a war of attrition where we spend all the next decade stopping these idiots from censoring free speech.

Because remember, all these Representatives are very old now, it isn't long before they die. ;) We shall survive them (hopefully).

Oh hey this thread got bumped again...

Sidiron:

As a small gripe, I would like to propose that BBC be moved to below Russia Today and Al-Jezeera, as it has lost all reputation it used to have for being balanced news, for cogs sake, it lacks news most days. It is more sitting on the sofa with heat magazines opinion polls.

Russia Today often picks up the more important, and obviously also the Russian, news around the world and is the one I tune the TV onto during the day, and also the pub TV when i'm working as most of the regulars us it instead of BBC and Sky. I am British/English just to clarify.

More on Topic; CISPA, the ConDems' internet surveillance and the constant throng of government bodies seeking to legislate the "Wild West" of the Internet is dangerous, needs pursuing and should be eagerly discouraged. The fact that everyone is becoming rather weary is rather scary and disconcerting as we are the young and virile ones and are going to be lumbered with the repurcussions of this.

Please don't give up even if it does turn into a war of attrition where we spend all the next decade stopping these idiots from censoring free speech.

Because remember, all these Representatives are very old now, it isn't long before they die. ;) We shall survive them (hopefully).

RT shows tremendous liberal bias sometimes, and I'm saying this as a liberal. The video in the OP is actually an example of RT bias. It approaches Fox Noise levels of inaccuracy and bias.

I never meant to insinuate that RT was not biased but a) it is refreshing to get liberal bias in a news agency, and b) us liberals know what bias is and read around a subject, which is different to most of those who use Fox/CNN/BBC etc, as they either can't or don't want to.

Apologies if am coming across as arrogant and elitist.

Sidiron:
As a small gripe, I would like to propose that BBC be moved to below Russia Today and Al-Jezeera, as it has lost all reputation it used to have for being balanced news, for cogs sake, it lacks news most days. It is more sitting on the sofa with heat magazines opinion polls.

Russia Today often picks up the more important, and obviously also the Russian, news around the world and is the one I tune the TV onto during the day, and also the pub TV when i'm working as most of the regulars us it instead of BBC and Sky. I am British/English just to clarify.

Bullshit >.>

No no no no no no no no. Reliability is not you hearing what you want to hear, but the reporting of FACTS. The BBC doesn't get shit wrong, and makes it clear when something is verified or "unverified reports".

Also you're doing a fucking massive dis-credit to the BBC's website which is far better than the chummy presenters chatting in the mornings...
I tend to be up early in the morning and watch as the Singapore, business reporter and he is fucking excellent.

Listen to the RT reporting on Syria... oh dear... yeah... they have not reported the offencive actions clearly and are portraying it as a full scale war as opposed to a gurillia war of people they have been executing. (I'd believe AJ+BBC over RT's EMP'ed studio).
They are incredibly bias on some issues (balanced with the coverage of local election fraud, which I didn't expect tbh).

Al-Jezeera as I said don't give a shit about its reporters saftey. They take a much broader range of both topics and war coverage. Of course they don't have the BBC's bullet proof, yet dreconian which means they'll take and broadcast images which haven't been properly verified but personally I believe its very hard to fake shells hitting a city.
They get 2nd because unless dealing with Israel they are unbiased a lot of the time. They aren't critical of the Government of Qatar where they are based but that's about the only country they aren't critical of.

Sidiron:
a) it is refreshing to get liberal bias in a news agency

In the same way that if you've fanatical evangelical christian republican, living in California its refreshing to listen to Fox News...
Invalid defence.

Sidiron:
b) us liberals know what bias is and read around a subject, which is different to most of those who use Fox/CNN/BBC etc, as they either can't or don't want to.

Fox lies.
CNN spins.
The BBC is neutral to the point of frustration.

I'd only ever listen to the BBC (well Fox for comedy due to its idiocy)

Sidiron:
Apologies if am coming across as arrogant and elitist.

Elitist? No no no... not that... whatever gave you that idea?

Comando96:

Bullshit >.>

No no no no no no no no. Reliability is not you hearing what you want to hear, but the reporting of FACTS. The BBC doesn't get shit wrong, and makes it clear when something is verified or "unverified reports".

Also you're doing a fucking massive dis-credit to the BBC's website which is far better than the chummy presenters chatting in the mornings...
I tend to be up early in the morning and watch as the Singapore, business reporter and he is fucking excellent.

Listen to the RT reporting on Syria... oh dear... yeah... they have not reported the offencive actions clearly and are portraying it as a full scale war as opposed to a gurillia war of people they have been executing. (I'd believe AJ+BBC over RT's EMP'ed studio).
They are incredibly bias on some issues (balanced with the coverage of local election fraud, which I didn't expect tbh).

Al-Jezeera as I said don't give a shit about its reporters saftey. They take a much broader range of both topics and war coverage. Of course they don't have the BBC's bullet proof, yet dreconian which means they'll take and broadcast images which haven't been properly verified but personally I believe its very hard to fake shells hitting a city.
They get 2nd because unless dealing with Israel they are unbiased a lot of the time. They aren't critical of the Government of Qatar where they are based but that's about the only country they aren't critical of.

Funnily enough, I do have access to a dictionary, which informs me of the fact that reliability does not mean me hearing what I want.
And yes the BBC may not report stuff that is wrong, mainly because they just don't report it. Especially when it comes to the issues surrounding news agencies and politicians, those reports seem to be awfully lacking. The business reporter from Singapore is rather decent yes, but still BBC News television which takes up all of the morning on BBC 1, is more obsessed with Which D list celebrity has been voted as yummy mummy of the decade or some other noxious peice of irrelevant crap.

They have their own agenda aswell, as they were all willing to go out and denounce every single arab nation for thwarting dissident youngsters campaigning because their lives were shit, but when we have the same in America and not dissimilar forceful tactics being used not a peep.
And then we had our own riots, where they were always made out as just the yobs of britain, which it does seem to have a penchant for aswell and has done for years, as opposed to a large group of neglected citizens who were already seething and then had a civilian gunned downin the community.

All news companies are biased, that is a fact, because humans themselves are inherently biased. However it is nice to watch different shows, and RT has many sections such as the Alyona Show and Capital Accounts with Lauren Lyster, where there are very intelligent people raising awareness of problems that don't often appear on news programs. This is why I watch RT since the BBC does not have the same kind of segments.

As a side note, this whole part is somewhat missing the point, as it was a rather off-hand comment, "a small gripe" almost, too be perfectly frank I was rather impressed with your comment as many I know don't bother with news at all nevermind knowing that there are other news channels to check, but all that evaporated at the condescension, arrogance and lack of civility. But hey ho, I hope you have a lot of fun here.

Apologies for the long post that really isn't on topic.

okay so question: why does the escapist not have a story about this shit out yet? its the internet; that place where we are? they said quite a bit about SOPA, so its clearly within their extended subject matter.

742:
okay so question: why does the escapist not have a story about this shit out yet? its the internet; that place where we are? they said quite a bit about SOPA, so its clearly within their extended subject matter.

Because it is nothing like SOPA, and upon closer inspection, is not really much of a big deal. That'd be my guess.

 

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked