Politicians Amend Controversial CISPA Security Bill

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Ummm...worreid about 'cyber threats?'

Get some fuckin' antivirus software. Duh.

Irridium:
Yo folks, some good news. It seems Obama is threatening to veto the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-veto-threat-obama/story?id=16214940#.T5h0LqtYsa4

So... there's still hope.

There is a god.

OT: Seriously, does our government really ignore us THAT much? Jesus christ.

Farther than stars:

Hevva:
According to reports, the amended bill restricts the government's ability to collect data to situations which involve stopping "cybersecurity, investigating and prosecuting cyber crime, protecting individuals from death or serious bodily harm, protecting minors from child pornography, and ensuring national security."

Not that I want to piss on everyone's hate parade, but don't these sound like legitimate reasons to breach someone's privacy? Also, why is it that everyone is so concerned about the internet being this ultimate sanctuary of privacy, when the right to privacy isn't even properly defined in the U.S. constitution? Because to me that really seems like an issue that should be addressed first.

Yes,

WITH A WARRANT.

You know, where the "Insert Government Agency Here" goes to a judge and proves they have due course to breach your privacy. It creates a sort of "accountability" and keeps citizens safe from unwarranted and unnecessary government overreach.

Protect your rights.

Sis:
You seem to be forgetting about ACTA. You know, the widely ignored bill of Europe that threatened the internet just as much as SOPA and PIPA and why do Americans only care about shit if it's in their own damned yard.

ACTA has pretty much been shut down. After most of the EU countries backed out, it sort of just died out.

CISPA isn't about piracy at all, it's about allowing net corporations to give personal information to government agencies without risking legal action. Long story short, it skips the need for a warrant altogether.

Farther than stars:

Also corporations like Facebook and Microsoft rallied people to be against SOPA and PIPA. It seems like this time they agree with the bill.

Yeah, that didn't hurt. However, with or without corporations, people tend to jump on one injustice for a few minutes and then move on as though the rest don't exist. KONY, for example. Or the Occupy bandwagon. Hell, nothing was solved there and 99% of the 99% (see what I did there) have moved on.

Still, point taken and you're right.

RatRace123:
...A way to kill the Hydra and take out all its heads in one blow, if you will.

...Shooting Hundred Heads?

Somebody go summon Herakles (Hercules) quickly!

Farther than stars:

Not that I want to piss on everyone's hate parade, but don't these sound like legitimate reasons to breach someone's privacy? Also, why is it that everyone is so concerned about the internet being this ultimate sanctuary of privacy, when the right to privacy isn't even properly defined in the U.S. constitution? Because to me that really seems like an issue that should be addressed first.

The US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constitution, and they have determined a right to privacy, so realistically it doesn't matter if we have an actual proper definition of right to privacy in the Constitution itself.

great.
now its getting from bad to worse. way to go.

now they have to copy the chinese. my friend lives there and he said its a nightmare with these strict controls. cant watch youtube, cant use facebook except the chinese facebook version. and everything gets monitored.
as soon you say something bad about the chinese government or try share a news to the world about china, it gets closed.

Saviordd1:
There is a god.

Yep, and judging by recent events it seems that he hates us.

OT : Like a Hydra. Cut a head... :\

Zachary Amaranth:

Farther than stars:

Not that I want to piss on everyone's hate parade, but don't these sound like legitimate reasons to breach someone's privacy? Also, why is it that everyone is so concerned about the internet being this ultimate sanctuary of privacy, when the right to privacy isn't even properly defined in the U.S. constitution? Because to me that really seems like an issue that should be addressed first.

The US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constitution, and they have determined a right to privacy, so realistically it doesn't matter if we have an actual proper definition of right to privacy in the Constitution itself.

It matters a little bit though, because if it was actually in the constitution, as opposed to being a fabrication of the Supreme Court, then that would effect how bills like this would be worded, since the constitution actually carries weight in law making, whereas the Supreme Court does not.

AC10:
Doesn't the bill, as it stands, essentially allow for corporations to give your private data to the government and other corporations as well?

I wanted to touch up on this point. I have a new perspective on how things work in our society thanks to a 4 hour BBC documentary called Century of the Self (Link) which analyzes how the works of Sigmund Freud has influenced our society in business and government throughout the 20th century. While the series doesn't relate this to todays internet world there is one interest connection it outlines in the final hour, that where/when business creates innovative new standards in marketing and sales techniques, the government and politicians are never far behind in adopting the same practices.

And whats the current trend today? Corporations tracking your online browsing habits and collecting person information where they can to create detailed individual profiles on each person through which targeted adds can be offered. History has shown that it's inevitable that the government and politicians will want in on this too, so how convenient this bill is to 'share' information back and forth.

I'm curious if another blackout would work twice or just seen as a stupid complaint and ignored entirely.

We need to do more. We need to do it soon.

*sighs*

So their first plan to rule the country's internet was met with massive negativity, so what do our wonderful politicians do? They turn into teenagers, slink off to where someone with any sense isn't likely to catch them, then come up with more elaborate ways to break the same rules. All they need is fast food, booze and/or something to smoke to make the analogy complete.

I just hope that the next time elections come around, these people get replaced before they manage to do any more harm.

$10 says nine out of ten people read the thread title, don't bother doing any research at all and post a comment along the lines of: "lolz, Amerikan government are bad."

Irridium:
Yo folks, some good news. It seems Obama is threatening to veto the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-veto-threat-obama/story?id=16214940#.T5h0LqtYsa4

So... there's still hope.

So what? He can only veto it once. They will vote again without changing anything and Obama won't be able to veto it. Veto doesn't mean jack shit when most of the people involved in voting are deep in corporate pockets.

captcha: speeding bullet

How appropriate. That is just what these politicians and corporate fuckers need in their skulls.

Dear American Goverment:
Stop trying to implememnt these bullshit Orwellian laws so your corporate buddies can make a little extra scratch. Or if you must, at least try and make sure it doesn't affect the rest of the world first.
Signed
Everyone on Earth

RaikuFA:

shadowmagus:
Seriously Dutch?

*sigh*

As a Marylander I apologize for the representative having lost his god damn mind and look forward to remedying the problem this year...hopefully...even though the guy keeps running without any real opposition. Dammit I hate this state.

I lived there growing up. I hated it. I now live in Jersey. Jersey is better than Maryland IMO.

Isn't that where Jersey Shore took place though? Wouldn't that qualify it as "worst state ever"? Of course, I'm up in northwest PA in awesome Erie (Presque Isle FTW).

OT: Damnit Congress! Don't you have better things to do than police the internet? Like say, balance the damn budget?!

How many times can congress reword/title the same goddamn bill and try to pass it? Let's watch!

aPod:

Farther than stars:

Hevva:
According to reports, the amended bill restricts the government's ability to collect data to situations which involve stopping "cybersecurity, investigating and prosecuting cyber crime, protecting individuals from death or serious bodily harm, protecting minors from child pornography, and ensuring national security."

Not that I want to piss on everyone's hate parade, but don't these sound like legitimate reasons to breach someone's privacy? Also, why is it that everyone is so concerned about the internet being this ultimate sanctuary of privacy, when the right to privacy isn't even properly defined in the U.S. constitution? Because to me that really seems like an issue that should be addressed first.

Yes,

WITH A WARRANT.

You know, where the "Insert Government Agency Here" goes to a judge and proves they have due course to breach your privacy. It creates a sort of "accountability" and keeps citizens safe from unwarranted and unnecessary government overreach.

Protect your rights.

But how could anything resembling a warrant process possibly be effective with reference to digital content?

I'm pretty ok with the bill honestly. I'll be for more narrowing down the specifics but quite frankly the people saying that the internet has brought too much anonymity and lack of personal responsibility have a point. If an individual is under suspicion on a reasonable level then I don't think there should be some long needed process to look through records like one would need for a physical investigation of their house. Digital content can't be treated the same as everything has been in the past. It won't work.

We should at least try to figure out how to make it work instead of how to kill it with fire else we totally are the 'bad guys' that the proponents of the bill want to make us look like.

A friendlier collar is still a collar.

They will not stop pushing for this until we concede it away, which the publics resolve is being eroded and this will likely sneak through within the next 1-3 years.

Adam Jensen:

Irridium:
Yo folks, some good news. It seems Obama is threatening to veto the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-veto-threat-obama/story?id=16214940#.T5h0LqtYsa4

So... there's still hope.

So what? He can only veto it once. They will vote again without changing anything and Obama won't be able to veto it. Veto doesn't mean jack shit when most of the people involved in voting are deep in corporate pockets.

captcha: speeding bullet

How appropriate. That is just what these politicians and corporate fuckers need in their skulls.

That's the depressing thing about the government system in place. It started off as a brilliant idea to prevent one person from arbitrarily saying "This is how things are going to be. Deal with it." but now we have the opposite problem. Now we have two powerhouse groups being misled by the lure of money/fame/power or false information making all the decisions. The one person we show as being the leader is ultimately powerless to see that beneficial things go through and stop what the people of the nation have already shown to not want.

Sounds like a good idea to me, but only if it works in a way that everybody's happy. Privacy and security are integral where one shouldn't be sacrificed for the other.

Could someone please explain to me why EVERYONE ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET was upset about SOPA? I unerstand why THIS bill is considered threatening, since it could get passed under the noble banner of security, but SOPA never stood a chance. Even if it was pushed past the house, senate, and president, we all know it would be shot down by the supreme court. If someone could explain why I'm wrong I'd welcome it.

Farther than stars:
whereas the Supreme Court does not.

Uhhh...You're joking, right?

If not, I have no idea how to respond to that.

Zachary Amaranth:

Farther than stars:
whereas the Supreme Court does not.

Uhhh...You're joking, right?

If not, I have no idea how to respond to that.

That's probably for the best. Look, I'm not saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have a way of setting powerful precedents which can eventually be incorporated into law making, but it doesn't have any legislative power itself. So why don't we just both leave it at that and get on with our lives?

Farther than stars:

That's probably for the best. Look, I'm not saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have a way of setting powerful precedents which can eventually be incorporated into law making, but it doesn't have any legislative power itself. So why don't we just both leave it at that and get on with our lives?

Well, that's a disingenuous compromise, since lack of legislative power still doesn't equate to not having any weight at that level. By that logic, neither does the Constitution.

There a huge difference between obtaining a warrant for information that a corporation is unwilling to give and obtaining the information voluntarily. The bill does not require any corporation to give over any information. The whole thing works on a voluntary basis. Warrants are not required.

Look at Operation:Game Over. Basically the State of New York went to companies like Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Warner Bros. and Disney gave them a list of Sex Offenders and asked them to take off any accounts. These companies didn't have to, it was a total voluntary thing.

Irridium:
Yo folks, some good news. It seems Obama is threatening to veto the bill.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/cispa-cybersecurity-bill-veto-threat-obama/story?id=16214940#.T5h0LqtYsa4

So... there's still hope.

Yeah... Hope. I guess its my job to take that hope and smash it into a thousand teeny tiny pieces.... Sweet blazing balls of fuckitude i love my job.

Did you know that Obama threatened to veto the NDAA, a bill controversial because it would allow for citizens of the US to be detained for all time without warrant, hearing, trial or legal rep? He signed it in the dead of night on new years eve. While everyone was distracted with parties, booze, and fireworks, he signed it. His promise to veto means exactly fuck all.

I think my work is done here. Nope not yet.

Zachary Amaranth:

Farther than stars:

Also corporations like Facebook and Microsoft rallied people to be against SOPA and PIPA. It seems like this time they agree with the bill.

Yeah, that didn't hurt. However, with or without corporations, people tend to jump on one injustice for a few minutes and then move on as though the rest don't exist. KONY, for example. Or the Occupy bandwagon. Hell, nothing was solved there and 99% of the 99% (see what I did there) have moved on.

Still, point taken and you're right.

Actually the 99% protests still go on today. Despite the police breaking them up every other day or so they do return. Thats probably the only protest that has any staying power.

Stopping "the government" from perusing private information at will is not the need here. Stopping CORPORATIONS from perusing your private correspondence at will is the issue. NOBODY should be reading your private communications except for the intended recipient. Allowing corporations to do so is asking for back-channel data mining and establishment of privately-owned "consumer profiles" that inevitably will be sold between companies so that everyone knows everything about you.

And inevitably, this information will be used for purposes that are illegal, such as denying employment, economic predation, sexual predation, etc. Employment blackmail is also a huge one - what happens when someone you report to knows your financial status from your consumer profile? Think they won't use that information to make you a slave to their success?

SciFi Maniac:
Could someone please explain to me why EVERYONE ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET was upset about SOPA? I unerstand why THIS bill is considered threatening, since it could get passed under the noble banner of security, but SOPA never stood a chance. Even if it was pushed past the house, senate, and president, we all know it would be shot down by the supreme court. If someone could explain why I'm wrong I'd welcome it.

Because it was proposed and accepted as an official "this could happen" thing in the first place. The presence of rights is supposed to preclude bills that make it legal to abrogate them. But the people who's official JOB it is to know this were the ones that accepted those bills into Congress. And this bill too.

Devil's Due:

Hevva:
To address these fears, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), the bill's sponsors, set about amending the legislation and this week presented a version of CISPA which they say is much friendlier towards the rights of the internet-browsing individual. According to reports, the amended bill restricts the government's ability to collect data to situations which involve stopping "cybersecurity, investigating and prosecuting cyber crime, protecting individuals from death or serious bodily harm, protecting minors from child pornography, and ensuring national security."

Uhh... Escapists, I've been a huge anti-SOPA and PIPA person on these boards, and generally am very unhappy with how these bills are being made and passed. But I searched through the bill, read majority of it and understood most of it, and also keyword searched through it.

There really isn't anything to fear. There was no mention of finding people for death or serious bodily harm, protecting against child porngraphy, nothing like that. Seriously, try and use the Find button on the bill and no such terms as "death, serious, bodily, harm, child, minor, pornography, porn" etc come up. Ever.

I think people really need to calm down and quit with the media fear. We blame Fox News of attacking everything with fear, but we ourselves seem to do it too when we post up claiming everything is SOPA equivalents.

Read the bill yourselves: http://rules.house.gov/media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CPRT-112-HPRT-RU00-HR3523.pdf

It even says in Page 10 Section A (line 23 on that page for you folks) that if it the Government screws up in any way with this law, it'll pay all your fees, reimburse you, and give you $1,000 for the error and then void any charges against you because of it.

Lets all take a step back from the rage and maybe understand why it's passed so well now when previous bills didn't, and with support of companies that previously didn't support such bills... maybe because it's actually a good version?

Come on, now. (Prepares flameshield for those who won't read the bill and claim I'm some Fed in disguise)

TLDR: Bring me the sections that support these claims it's another SOPA, tell me the page, section, and line, and I'll agree then if you're correct.

Here you go. https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/cybersec_chart.pdf

Compares the bills. Page 3 is specifically my concern, that the people who gather this information are free to use it in any way they want, including selling it, with full protection for any abuses they commit "in good faith".

Given how broad the language is, just exactly how much power is being handed to corporate management? As I see it, under this bill, a single manager who doesn't like the cut of your jib can not only use your information to find an excuse to fire you, they can BLACKBALL you through information sharing with other companies. And they're completely immunized from legal action as long as they can show the slightest justification that they're acting "in good faith".

Trust me, you do NOT want to hand some people the kind of continent-sized ass-shield represented by the phrase "in good faith". Consider what Bobby Kotik or John Riccitiello would do with such information. /shudder

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here