Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

New Cyber Security Bills Open Door To Gov't, Corporate Abuse

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the concentrated-incentives-diffuse-objections dept.

Security 93

Gunkerty Jeb writes with a selection from Threatpost about upcoming legislation to watch out for: "EFF looked at two bills making their way through Congress: The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 (S. 2105), sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) of Connecticut and the Secure IT Act (S. 2151), sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ). The digital rights group claims that the quality of both bills ranges from 'downright terrible' to 'appropriately intentioned.' Each, however, is conceptually similar and flawed, EFF said."

cancel ×

93 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (3, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461047)

Something's wrong here... we're getting far to many new copyright powers laws being proposed in Congress, and this sort of nonsense is supposed to be dead in committee and not brought to the floors. Is Hollywood sending too much money to Congress and we're not sending enough?

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (4, Insightful)

Immostlyharmless (1311531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461105)

No, the reason there are so many sponsors of this sort of crap, is that its ripe for (ab)use by our elected officials to silence critical voices. In other words, they are drooling over this because it will help them stay in their cushy jobs that we pay for with absolutely no checks and balances or voices to tell us what they are up to.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461343)

No, the reason there are so many sponsors of this sort of crap, is that its ripe for (ab)use by our elected officials to silence critical voices.

Could you explain which provisions of these laws would "silence critical voices"?

From what I've just read, it looks pretty much like a bunch of laws protecting specific corporate interests and giving too much power to police to protect specific corporate interests.

Maybe you're seeing an aspect to these bills that I'm missing, so I'm hoping you can explain specifically how these bills would stifle criticism of the government..

Re:Explain which Provisions (3, Informative)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463103)

Try these excerpts from the article:

"In an e-mail conversation with Threatpost, Auerbach of EFF characterized the bills as âoealarming.â Of particular concern: a section in both the Lieberman bill and the McCain bills that authorizes monitoring by private firms of any traffic that transits their networks. Ostensibly intended to facilitate private-public information sharing, the passage would grant complete private sector immunity for data monitoring and sharing practices. Private entities would be unbound from the Wiretap Act and other legal limits and immunized against a swath of questionable monitoring practices, EFF claims.

Furthermore, Auerbach and Tien worry that the bills' definition of a "cyber security threat" is too broad, and could cover everything from stealing passwords from a secure government server to scanning a network for software vulnerabilities. Similarly, the bills calls for more ISP traffic analysis and monitoring could bring about more civil liberties violations. For example, ISPs could simply block Tor, cryptographic protocols, or traffic on certain ports under the guise of defensive countermeasures, the EFF speculated."

So given our new over-reaching governments, it's not hard to see how those kinds of measures then later get warped out of control even more than they already are.

Re:Explain which Provisions (1)

jc42 (318812) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463753)

For example, ISPs could simply block ... cryptographic protocols... under the guise of defensive countermeasures ...

In simpler words, they want to block our use of encrypted login names, account numbers and passwords.

It might be interesting to know how the major banks are lobbying in this case. If the public comes to understand that their account information can be harvested by their ISP and other companies that provide the "wires", smart people will simply stop using electronic banking.

The companies pushing for such clauses certainly understand what clauses like the above mean, and they've included it so that they can block encryption of our login info. It would take a real dummy to fail to understand why they want this.

Re:Explain which Provisions (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465319)

It might be interesting to know how the major banks are lobbying in this case. If the public comes to understand that their account information can be harvested by their ISP and other companies that provide the "wires", smart people will simply stop using electronic banking.

Sure, that would hurt all sorts of online commerce. And since, in their view, the entire purpose of the Internet is commerce, it's going to be a big problem.

Re:Explain which Provisions (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465331)

I get it. Once you take away the ability to encrypt, you take away the ability to be anonymous, too. That would certainly kill a lot of speech.

It would also kill a lot of commerce though. Once again, it sounds like legislation that has not been well thought out.

Re:ability to encrypt (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39475365)

That's one reason I keep calling this stuff "Social Division by Zero". They can just keep carving out slices of the pie to "allow encryption for commercial details but outlaw encryption for free speech". Once you get swindled by the "Fridge Logic" (see TV Tropes) then free speech law will start to be like the US Tax Code. (Which, while nasty, makes its own scary brand of internally consistent sense.)

And better bet that the big corps will just buy "Speech Licenses" to be exempt anyway.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (5, Funny)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461131)

I'm going to petition Congress to roll all of these types of bills into one all-encompassing bill: the Secure Homeland Information Technology & Transactions? Yes! Act

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

schrodingersGato (2602023) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461365)

I'm John McCain and I support this message.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461175)

Anything that goes mainstream gets regulated to death
Internet is the new casualtiy

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461205)

ObamaRomney's Top Donators:. They are just paying back the media companies to say "thank you". Oh and "Here's your copyright law to protect your old-fashioned cable or media business."

A bunch of banks plus:
University of California $1,648,685
Harvard University $878,164
Microsoft Corp $852,167
Google Inc $814,540
---> Time Warner $624,618
Sidley Austin LLP $600,298
Stanford University $595,716
---> National Amusements Inc $563,798
WilmerHale LLP $550,668
Columbia University $547,852
--> Skadden, Arps et al $543,539
UBS AG $532,674
IBM Corp $532,372
---> General Electric $529,855
US Government $513,308
Morgan Stanley $512,232
Latham & Watkins $503,295

If this list was longer we'd probably see donations from Verizon, Comcast, Sony, MGM, RIAA, and MPAA.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461487)

I'd really like to know the source of your stats.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

Freddybear (1805256) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461569)

I think this is it right here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 [opensecrets.org]

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461609)

I think this is it right here:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?cycle=2012&id=N00009638 [opensecrets.org]

And here's our potential future:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461917)

Okay... that's freakishly too consistent.

So Obama's contributors seem to be mostly intellectual-type organisations. Universities, tech companies, law firms.

Romney's contributors are all banksters.

Maybe I'm being too rational here, but it seems to me that such a drastically obvious divide should be ground for both candidates being disqualified/removed from the race. I thought the whole point was to have one leader for the whole country, not just half of the country - or significantly less, if you subscribe to my bullshit theory that 90% of all people are terminally stupid.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463087)

There is a huge discrepancy between the amounts posted by cpu6502 and the opensecrets.org links. Something smells a bit like bull crap here.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (4, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461597)

Obama has raised around $750M over the course of his political career, primarily from small (less than $4000) donations. Only about 0.3% of that came from those companies you highlighted, which, I might add, aren't all media companies. Skadden et al is a law firm that specializes in mergers and acquisitions... they may do some copyright law for all I know, but it's hardly a major business for them. GE sold NBC to Comcast a while back, so they aren't a media company anymore.

Furthermore, I don't think you understand what those numbers (which I assume you got from Open Secrets) mean. If you were to pick up the phone right now and call the DNC and give them a donation for $300, a few things would happen. First, they would take your name, number, and address, so that they could ask for more donations in the future. Second, they would take your job title and employer, so it could be reported on their financial disclosure forms. So let's say that you end up giving $600 a year for four years, and that you work for Widgets, Inc. That would mean that sites like Open Secrets would now show "Widgets, Inc" as having donated an additional $2400 to the DNC. If a hundred of your coworkers (out of the thousands that the company employs) do the same, it will look like Widgets, Inc has paid $240,000 to the DNC, and people would get on Slashdot demanding to know what widget-favoring laws are being passed in response.

But even setting that aside, even if we assume that all these donations are coordinated by the business in exchange for favors, do you really think that providing 0.3% of the presidents's money is enough to buy him off? Sorry to be so blunt, but that's stupid.

These laws are happening because politicians don't have a good understanding of the issues. Or maybe they're happening because the politicians legitimately disagree with you. But they are NOT being bought, and you do a disservice to our democracy when you throw that accusation around so loosely.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464765)

The media companies need not pay the politicians, they are ones controlling, well, the media. They get to control public opinion of these politicians, which more than enough to get politicians to pass laws they like.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39474847)

Nope i believe the requisite amount to buy the president off is .04%

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39475801)

Wow. Somebody who's been dupped into believing the Republican and Democrat presidents are good.

Why don't we ask the 1 million+ innocent men, women, and children that Bush and Obama have killed, and see what they think? You DO realize that Obamacare is just a giant gift to the insurance companies, giving them ~40 million new customers by mandating those uninsured persons MUST buy insurance (no wonder insurance stocks went UP after obamacare passed). Yeah he's in the pocket of the corporations. There's no doubt of that. so is Romney.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461747)

Oh yeah. McCain is sure the first one to call for a bill that panders to those that sponsored Obama. I guess the message is "No hard feelings, even though you pumped your money into my opponent instead of me".

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466153)

US Government $513,308

That's a little ... freakish. My tax dollars hard at work!

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

Higgins_Boson (2569429) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461341)

I say we just keep letting the entertainment industry eat itself to death from within. That is all that will come of this in the end. It's just autocannibalism at its best.

When they can come up with reasonably priced ticket sales, DVD/BD and CD media sales and streaming, they will thrive. As it is, they are seemingly only trying to make more and more money by suing individuals, who can't pay it anyhow, to try and recoup their ridiculous legal costs. They are a cancer unto themselves.

So, let the beast eat itself and when it runs out of food, it will just die off. Maybe than we can finally start seeing new movies and television shows, which are not simply remakes and re-brands of the same old crap they've been putting out for 50 years.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (5, Interesting)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461361)

It's not about copyright. It's about the police state that they are creating.
  1. Protesting is now a fellony
  2. Martial law is both sort of here and can be declared without any emergency
  3. habias corpus is history
  4. due process is history, apparently just having any kind of process is now due process
  5. The US government claims the right to assassinate any of it's citizens, anywhere on the planet at any time of their chosing
  6. The executive branch claims they no longer need congress' approval on any war related matters, they would rather just take orders from the UN
  7. Every branch of government is now spying on you without any sort of oversight and in every possible way they can think up
  8. The "TSA" now has roving checkpoints on roads and transportation hubs within the US
  9. The so called "Free speech zones" cover only a tiny percentage of American citizens.
  10. we're in a war against a tactic, designed to never end
  11. elections are openly stolen and not covered by mainstream media
  12. Mainstream media is completely controlled now by crony capitalists and especially intelligence services, that takeover started in the 60's.
  13. Many hard working citizens routinely pay a combined tax rate (Fed, state, sales, etc) of over 60%. This is catallaxy choking, slavery level taxation. In the history of slavery, educated slaves have often paid 50% tax rates to their masters.
  14. The constitution is being taken to a dark room and violently sodomized
  15. The faction of power that killed JFK has been in power every since, making every effort to become supreme leaders
  16. presidents since JFK and nixon have been a mixture of puppets and high level darknet power-hungry secret society ranking members.
  17. The people have lost control of their money. 50% of EVERY transaction that takes place is now the FIAT decree of unaccountable masters

With all of this going on, you thought that you would be allowed to keep you free press, right to assembly, free speech and communications on the internet?
That's pretty fucking naive. Slaves don't get to have these freedoms. Only societies that treasure and fight for freedom have them. In these societies everyone is an individual and individual freedoms, regardless of race, religion, wealth or social status are all equal.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461977)

What I love about your post is that you are almost assuredly being downmodded by people who dismiss this as wacky conspiracy theory bullshit. People just can't handle the truth when it doesn't fit within their narrow indoctrinated views.

Who needs censorship laws when society consists predominantly of an obedient and oblivious mass that self-censors ? If you don't toe the line, you're "crazy". To borrow a line from my favorite anti-hero, "the stinkier it gets, the more they love their bullshit lives". Black slavery created a huge backlash, so now they've come back with Slavery 2.0: financial dominion.

Keep on challenging the status quo. Assume everything everyone says is a lie, then work backwards until you uncover the verifiable truth. That's the only way to navigate this sea of bullshit.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39464775)

There is *some* truth in the post, but most of it is a conspiracy theory. So unless GP is willing to substantiate his claims with facts, he would be considered a conspiracy theorist, and rightfully so.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 2 years ago | (#39467675)

Here's something to get you started. It took me a long time to find these and that is why I rarely take the time to search for things for people who really should be making the effort to inform themselves.

Protesting is now a felony
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SGWH3kirzg [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_SXcch1nw0 [youtube.com]

Martial law is both sort of here and can be declared without any emergency
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myPENDAJdE0 [youtube.com]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness [whitehouse.gov]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kslFCUGSR1o [youtube.com]

habias corpus is history
due process is history, apparently just having any kind of process is now due process
The US government claims the right to assassinate any of it's citizens, anywhere on the planet at any time of their chosing
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWApGqE_T-k [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6ThanSzG_w [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2EynpMPFOs [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gstBozWfhQ [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iP-6qCzJ_w [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ciWWok1SA [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsHjH3Jno6k [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIawimcXGmU [youtube.com]

The executive branch claims they no longer need congress' approval on any war related matters, they would rather just take orders from the UN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzZAOQnYFI [youtube.com]

The "TSA" now has roving checkpoints on roads and transportation hubs within the US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13KLp4aoOq0 [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRgxH_42AJk [youtube.com]

elections are openly stolen and not covered by mainstream media
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKe0dxBJy1A [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_brWibusrf8 [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgMQmfOGhQs [youtube.com]

Mainstream media is completely controlled now by crony capitalists and especially intelligence services, that takeover started in the 60's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1E7s7XaV7E [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7rRmkJzWuw [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaQVX30ginQ [youtube.com]
http://tmh.floonet.net/articles/cia_press.html [floonet.net]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NklKE-0CNcs [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQhEBCWMe44 [youtube.com]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjk6bJhywoM [youtube.com]

The faction of power that killed JFK has been in power every since, making every effort to become supreme leaders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3EIXovrnkI [youtube.com]

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39463429)

The world is going to become a really tough neigborhood over the next 50 years. Global warming will raise sea levels, creating a wave of refugees to higher ground. Forget about oil, cheap clean water will be what we fight wars over.

Add to that the reality that the government cannot simultaneously be afraid of its citizens and unafraid of terrorists, and the web is shining unprecedented light on, and giving us unprecedented ability to interfere with, the corrupt infighting of the rich and powerful for their various self-interests (where we are just collateral damage.)

This is an untenable state or affairs. Order and a predictable, stable, profitable trajectory for the status quo must be maintained. And that's what I feel this process of lockdown is all about.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39464085)

I saw bigfoot.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

crazyjj (2598719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39474449)

Well, we are in a state of war.

And will be forevermore.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461525)

Yes. I agree. It seems like the armies are massing, and battle lines are being drawn.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461557)

Note that it's LIEberman and McCain sponsoring these... and here I thought that the Democrats were supposed to be the pawns of Hollywood.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461627)

Note that it's LIEberman and McCain sponsoring these... and here I thought that the Democrats were supposed to be the pawns of Hollywood.

Lieberman IS a Democrat. He switched to "independent" so he could still run after someone beat him in the Democrat Primary for his seat.

And McCain is, to put it politely, a slime mold....

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461691)

If one defines a Democrat as standing with a Democratic administration or speaking, voting, and in alignment with the Democratic platform ideals, then he is not.

If one defines a democrat as somebody from Connecticut who needs to be somewhat affiliated with the Democratic Party, then sure, he's a Democrat.

Of course, I'd say that calling Lieberman a Democrat about as honest as saying that Ted Nugent is a vegetarian...

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461803)

I'm sure Ted has put ketchup on his burgers before. That puts him squarely in the vegetable loving category.

Lieberman, however, is just a rutabaga.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461777)

On behalf of every slime mold on this planet I do expect an apology for that unfounded, uncalled for comparison!

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (2)

moj0joj0 (1119977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461585)

Is Hollywood sending too much money to Congress and we're not sending enough?

No, the problem is that money is how voting gets done these days. Those that have more money get more voting power.

Rather than allowing voices to actually be heard, bank accounts now speak loudest. Until that is changed, democracy in the United States is dead. People advocating funds for lobbyists to stand in opposition to this (and any other proposed laws) are just as guilty as companies funding Congressmen/women.

There isn't any way to "fix" this problem. This has gone far beyond the point of no return, a serious and significant reset must happen before anything can be accomplished. I am in fear for our future and I can see no way to avoid it.

We as United States citizens now blithely accept violations that in the past have destroyed political careers, started the revolution and the civil war in our country. Remember the 4 boxes? How many are left that haven't been completely compromised?

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461987)

What about box #5: the detonator box ?

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

moj0joj0 (1119977) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462497)

What about box #5: the detonator box ?

As I recall, the four boxes were:

  • - Soap
  • - Ballot
  • - Jury
  • - Ammo

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462671)

The idea that the MPAA and the RIAA are heading these efforts is really just a distraction. Total revenues of the entire global music industry is somewhere around $30 billion. The total movie industry revenue is higher, at about $87 billion. It's a lot of money, but look at what these bills are doing in detail. Every single one is also designed to limit the consumer market for generic medications and especially to limit (that is, abolish) the ability of US consumers to obtain prescription drugs from non-US sources.

Pfizer, a single pharmaceutical company, made $68 billion in revenue by themselves in 2006. They made almost $11 billion in a single year on Lipitor, one of their best sellers. Just the top 3 pharmaceutical companies made twice the revenue of the entire music and movie industries combined.

So it's not as big a deal to the mainstream that kids on their parents computers get blocked from downloading the latest from Lady Gaga or obtaining pirate copies of the Hunger Games before it hits DVD. What they don't realize is that these efforts will also greatly benefit the drug industry to the detriment of the American public and the total cost of health care.

The drug companies are about to lose major revenues due to expiring patents on their biggest money-makers. And without new drugs coming out, they want to protect that revenue. Their efforts include not only blocking sales from non-US retailers and tightening the regulatory screws on generic, but in fact are attempting to ban the sales of as many generic drugs as they can. Working with the FDA as their proxy, they have recently managed to ban hundreds of generic drugs from the market [techdirt.com] , many of which have been sold for decades. They have also gotten tri-care to eliminate a number of generics from their approved medications, requiring patients to use much more expensive brand-name medications instead.

If people knew what the real result that these bills would have, in terms of medications and drug costs, you would see a lot more outrage. That's why they keep claiming it's about music and movie piracy. In fact it's about IP in general, including drug company patents, and that's where the big money pushing for this stuff is really coming from.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464197)

You forget the MPAA and RIAA companies have many things in abundance and these things are more likely to drive egoistic psychopaths and narcissistic politicians.

Things like pseudo celebrity parties on mega-yachts, island resorts and hotel like mansions. Lots of drugs, including a full range of addictive pharmaceuticals (those plastic surgeons will sign off on any prescription) as well as illegal drugs, I'm talking lots and lots and lots of drugs. Ready to be abused music, movie and TV industry hopefuls, young and desperate, now add in the drugs and you have a typical politicians party (oxycontin, viagra, and a what ever age or sex sacrifice required to satiate the ego of the politician). Double plus benefit, post coital blackmail ensures legislative compliance. Not to forget lots and lots of cash, actually hard currency, as well as bases in tax havens and extradition free zones.

Basically the MPAA and RIAA industry is riddled with organised crime, due in large part to the cash, drugs and sex that 'er' lubricates that industry. They basically use that capability to out influence all other industries. Of course lets not forget advertising as news, pure propaganda players like Fox not-News that continually run pretend interviews that are actually political adds for favoured politicians or conversely attack pieces that are even more blatant political adds.

Re:Is Congress mad at Slashdot/The Web? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464231)

Obviously, you're not familiar with the pharma industry, and have never been visited by a pharma rep or attended any of their hot mess parties.

Of course lets not forget advertising as news, pure propaganda players like Fox not-News that continually run pretend interviews that are actually political adds for favoured politicians or conversely attack pieces that are even more blatant political adds.

That's not isolated - it's 99% of all media. Even MacNeil/Lehrer has been 100% scripted for years.

McCain and Lieberman? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461065)

Well, at least the lobbyists bought the sharpest tools in the tool chest.

Re:McCain and Lieberman? (3, Insightful)

schrodingersGato (2602023) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461393)

You know that you've come of age as an executive when you've given up trading stocks and begun to buy and sell politicians

An old prophecy comes true (5, Interesting)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461087)

There was an old indian prophecy, told after the arrival of the white man in America, shortly after the trail of tears. It was this: "One day, what they have done to us, they will do to each other." This country has a long history of stealing land held by indigenous people, slaughtering them, and relocating the survivors. The next land grab has arrived, except this time, it isn't a fight for physical property, but digital. And just as the fences went up, the land was repurposed, and the environment poisoned in its realworld counterpart, so too must the digital follow.

Everything must be owned. It is the mantra of capitalism. The first peoples of the internet; the hackers, the academics, the non-profits, are now being rounded up, jailed, or forcibly deported from their homes and off their property to make way for The Man. All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again. Your days of "free" code and believing nobody can own [the internet] are coming to an end. They have guns, they have the support of the government, and this time they won't bother with that non-sense about signing treaties. And future generations will never know a world where ideas couldn't be owned, where knowledge was free, and where anonymity from corporations and governments provided fertile ground for social change.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461129)

the key to our future, as always, is the youth.

the old guys (my age) are too stuck in their ways and they'll never give up their idea of 'ownership' of internet things.

what I do worry about is the total lack of CARING on the part of the young people, today.

they happily sign away their privacy in failbook, give away their emails when any stranger asks and will parade in cow costumes in a mall just to get a 'free' lunch. they do not care! they only see the 'gimme!' side of things. quite blind, actually.

the culture is at fault. we lead our kids to 'buy buy buy!' and if the retailer offers a tiny discount in exchange for their privacy, they don't care! they saved a whole dollar!

the blame is on both sides. corp greed AND the consumer who does not see what is being done to them.

I have zero hope of things improving. but please prove me wrong! I beg you to prove me wrong.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (4, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461225)

>>>what I do worry about is the total lack of CARING on the part of the young people, today.

That's what I used to think until I started visiting the Ron Paul page and talking to them (almost all 39 and younger). They are not going to let go of "their" internet. They consider it their property and their voice, and the way to fight back against the Corporate-owned NBC, FOX, CNN channels.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461297)

Too bad they've chosen to do it by backing an old, racist Ayn Rand fan.

Or they're doing it "ironically."

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461607)

I suspect that they are able to overlook the "bat shit crazy" parts just as I and many others were able to overlook the right-of-center Republican that was using the campaign slogan of "Hope And Change" not so long ago...

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462143)

Ron Paul is not bat-shit crazy. Or "racist".

YOU are the perfect example of an individual who just blindly believes whatever NBC, FOX, CNN feeds you. They TELL you that Paul is racist and you swallow it like an American swallowing Bush's propaganda that Iraq had WMDs. "I saw it on the news; it must be true." If you'd bother to do even a little bit of research, you'd discover the evidence shows the exact opposite.

Don't be such a dupe. You're allowing the Cable News channels to brainwash you Mr. Anon. Coward.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462619)

Not to come off like the fact police. But it is 100% fact that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. There are a lot of dead Kurds that would testify to that except for the fact that they are dead. I am guessing you meant nuclear weapons. I agree with the broad point of your post though.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462787)

(different AC here)

I'm willing to give Ron Paul the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word that he is not a racist.

However, it is an indisputable fact that he openly pandered to racists in the 90s. This is the main reason why he is the favored candidate of many prominent white supremacist organizations. It doesn't take "brainwashing" or a liberal media conspiracy for people to make the logical leap and assume that he is racist as well.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39475591)

Ron Paul was busy delivering babies during the early 90s. The letters were written by some other guy who, admittedly, Paul should have been reviewing and rejecting but he was busy being a doctor.

As for his favored support among white supremacist organizations, so what? Congressman Paul also has wide-ranging support among prostitutes and black people. Does that mean Dr. Paul is a pimp to the whores, and does ghetto-rapping on the weekends? C'mon! You fail at logic Mr. AC.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39476627)

Wow, you're the one who is saying that all black people are gangster rappers, and I'm the one who fails at logic. Bravo... bravo....

But seriously now, you've never heard the phrase "the friend of my enemy is my enemy"? White supremacists are actively trying to take away my civil rights. That is their #1 goal, just like the #1 goal of the NRA is to protect the 2nd amendment. If the NRA supports a candidate, it means the candidate's political positions are advantageous to the NRA's stated #1 goal. Likewise, if white supremacist groups support a candidate, then that means the candidate's political positions are advantageous to white supremacist organizations #1 goal of taking away my civil rights.

I suppose it is possible that it is simply a side-effect that Ron Paul's political positions help white supremacist organizations to further their #1 goal. But if you are honestly trying to compare organizations whose #1 goal is taking away my civil rights with two groups of people whose #1 goal is, well, varied, then it is you who fail at logic, Mr Troll64.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461605)

I suspect that before things change, our generation will have to be vilified as having promoted wasteful values in a resource starved environment and allowing power to become so concentrated in the hands of our corporate masters that the people have lost their voice.

What scares me most, though, is the fact that we are so dependent on our technology and interdependent systems of manufacturing, transportation, food production and all the other bits that go to make up the systems that sustain humanity that if it gets so bad that there's an actual revolution, given the fact that we've already burned through so many resources, it might be impossible to build it back up again.

As a species, we're not in a good place, and those with the power and position don't seem to be willing or able to take us to where we need to be.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461811)

At some point in time people will look back at this time and age and wonder how we let it come to this, how we could be so blind and not see where it is heading. I guess I now understand how my grandparents didn't stand up against Hitler when there was still enough time to.

I'm in no way better.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (2)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461715)

the old guys (my age) are too stuck in their ways and they'll never give up their idea of 'ownership' of internet things.

Sorry, but those old guys are the very ones who came up with the idea that "internet things" couldn't be owned. And they have given up that idea. Not all of the old guys, of course, just the ones in power, and that's not coincidence. And guess what? I'd lay good money that a whole pile of the idealistic "information has to be free" youth will give give up those ideals too, and that the ones who end up in power will be the ones who gave up those ideals, and that won't be coincidence either.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (3, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461793)

Our youth is already lost to Facebook, being filed and dissected for their consumerist value, lost in a world where you are what you consume, and you are if you consume, where you do not exist if you do not, or if you cannot. The value of a person is his purchasing power and his willingness to consume.

I weep for humanity.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

tyrus568 (644456) | more than 2 years ago | (#39463451)

Was it ever different? Sure, in the 40's. but in the 50's, teens were using the hula hoop and cruising around drive-thrus, drinking and drag-racing. In the 60's they hung out at parties smoking pot, went to concerts and learned to tie-dye, read the Tarot and Mad magazine. They said that changes were coming, but when they grew up, they became the same businessmen and golf-players that their fathers were. The once-promised ideals in their hearts grew into a giant wave, but eventually that wave crested and fell back (to paraphrase Hunter). In the 70's... disco. nuff said.

I was near the trailing edge of gen x (born in '77). I was the last generation to not grow up with computers (although we had atari 2600s and eventually commodores and tandys). It didn't take long until everyone became born, lived and died in the era of the Internet, and it's changed everything, just as the American Dream has finally been unable to disguise its cracked and crumbling remains, including many rights that we assumed would never be breached. Generation Y and beyond have been exposed to media and advertising in levels never seen before, and as a result, their view of the world is even more askew than ours was growing up. But human teenagers and early 20somethings will always have the same basic characteristics as each generation before them. They will have pie-in-the-sky dreams, they may think they are invincible.

Every generation has its cult of the mainstream. Every generation has people on the fringe who are considered outcasts. Each generation wants to change things for the better. Each generation repeats the same mistakes.

I agree with you that the modern consensus in America is that money and image is everything, love is considered a weakness, intelligence is scorned and sports players make a hundred times more than special ed teachers. But American society is what feeds this perception to our kids, and in turn most of them adopt it. While there are a few anti-establishment disenfranchised individuals, they have always been there.

I finally feel like I'm seeing some of the populace come out of their daydreams and look around them. I could be imagining it, but it seems that resentment of our current society is slowly growing among the citizens, but it has never changed anything in America in the past, not since the Civil War. Will it ever?

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39465191)

In the same boat as you are, at a very similar age. But I dare to disagree. I see it as a culture-counter culture swing between generations, and that kinda broke down.

Every generation of youths tried to defy their parent generation. So you got to see a swing in the youth culture every 20-25 years. A war generation of the 40s with conformity, strife and sacrifice was countered by a peace, love and equality movement mixed with quite a bit of hedonism of the 60s, which in turn was countered by a dog-eat-dog capitalist yuppy movement and emotional freezing of the 80s. The 2000s should actually have been a decade much like the 60s, and in a way they were kinda-sorta like a digital age 60s, with a strong open source movement and the conviction of our youth that there's more to be gained by cooperation, love and compassion. Coupled with a healthy dose of just enjoying life. But you could also notice a certain amount of willingness to break down boarders and acceptance, much like the civil rights movement of the 60s there was a bit of a "netizen rights" movement. There was just nothing really that pushed it to gain some steam.

Oddly enough, the "odd" decades don't work out, or at least I don't get them. The 50s, 70s, 90s and now the 2010s just seem to be decades where our kids want to enjoy life. They have, as a collective, neither the drive to better society nor to better themselves. Maybe such a transition decade is necessary, I don't know, social science isn't my forte. The 50s are mostly remembered for the advent of "rock music", the 70s for disco, the 90s for acid and raving and now the 2010s for the shallow promise of vanity entertainment for the price of your privacy.

But I don't think that there wasn't anything changing since the civil war. The 60s and the civil rights movement certainly moved some things in the right direction, against a fairly strong opposition. And much of the burden was actually carried by the younger generation, certainly not by the 40+ people who were actually the opposition.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466387)

Therefore my "societal" value is close to zero; regardless of the purchasing power I have, my willingness to "consume" is close to zero.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461299)

LOL. When has the internet ever NOT been owned? The first router was owned, the first network card was owned. It has always ever been thus. Capitalism has several well-documented flaws, and yet it's still better than all the other systems put together. Problem is, instead of trying to fix the system, it's TO THE BARRICADES, COMRADES and destroy the system, while not worrying a whit about what will come after the revolution, which will inevitably be a worse state of affairs. See: Egypt.

Who's being rounded up, exactly? Where are the camps where they're receiving re-education through labor?

P.S. attributing personal characteristics to people solely by race is...what exactly? I forgot what that's called.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461849)

The hardware of the internet was always owned by someone, of course. What changed is the culture. It used to be a culture of production, now it's a culture of consumption.

The internet of the good ol' days consisted of many people who offered ideas, opinions, guides, information, they exchanged them and built on each other, with impunity and gladly. Sure, a lot was trash and even more very specific and only interesting for a minority. But there was room for those thinkers and dreamers. It changed. Today, we have a culture where people don't create, they only want to consume. They want to take, but giving has become anathema to the Internet where you don't give. You sell. And what you don't sell, you patent. And THEN sell it.

A culture of freedom is traded for a culture of commercialism. If you don't consider this a problem, then I guess you're part of the problem.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (1)

billcopc (196330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462027)

P.S. attributing personal characteristics to people solely by race is...what exactly? I forgot what that's called.

Culture. Saying we French Quebecers are all alcoholic cousin-fucking hippies may be offensive, but it is often accurate (just not ALL of us). Have you seen our step-cousins ? You'd hit that too!

Discriminating based on race is racism. Saying all black people should be shot/deported/launched into space because they're not white, well that's just racist.

ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461415)

When your economy depends on people only attempting to gain only what they actually need (and no more), being generous with one another, accepting a lack of control over resources, etc., expect it to flop.

An important selective pressure that has been acting on human evolution since the dawn of the cell is this: competition over scarce resources.

You can't realistically expect something as brand-spanking-new as the Internet to undermine millions upon millions of years of selective refinement.

The desire to acquire and control is a basic tenet of human nature. And yes, the "Indians" did it too. And so do you, whether you think of it as such or not.

Re:ROFL (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461643)

It's a matter of balance.

And note that part of this ingrained tendency is to destroy those few who take too much and leave everyone else with insufficient resources. We call it revolution. And in this day and age, when everything is so interdependent on everything else, from transportation to energy to food production to manufacturing to clothing and basic necessities, revolution would not be pretty at all.

Re:ROFL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462595)

And so do you, whether you think of it as such or not.

You're simplifying the matter. I don't directly murder anyone.

Re:An old prophecy comes true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461933)

The Indians are not "indigenous" to the US area, they came from Asia/Europe. So if your entire theory is people who are not indigenous don't belong, then your precious Indians don't belong either.

Every federal bill is invasive (0)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461093)

Every thing the feds do can be used nefariously, and in time regardless of its original intentions, will be.

its the nature of a federal government who ignores its rules. ( ie, the Constitution here in the US ), or has none in the first place ( like in several other countries )

Re:Every federal bill is invasive (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461855)

It's a sad time when you look at countries that have a mostly defunct parliament that cannot get majorities for any new laws, and you envy them.

Re:Every federal bill is invasive (1)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39466413)

I've seen the solution described as succinctly as possible in someone's signature: "Vote gridlock."

What the...!? (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461119)

Well, that's just abused.

Those two, again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461123)

I saw that McCain and Lieberman were the sponsors, and immediately concluded that the EFF is doubtlessly right. Have either of those warmongering sellouts ever proposed a single thing that would actually benefit their constituents (as opposed to their paymasters)?

the gov is not evil, that othe guy is! (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461157)

quoting:

Of particular concern: a section in both the Lieberman bill and the McCain bills that authorizes monitoring by private firms of any traffic that transits their networks. Ostensibly intended to facilitate private-public information sharing, the passage would grant complete private sector immunity for data monitoring and sharing practices. Private entities would be unbound from the Wiretap Act and other legal limits and immunized against a swath of questionable monitoring practices, EFF claims.

emph mine.

THIS is what's going on. and end-run around US laws. since the US has been repeatedly caught with its hands in the cookie jar, it now tries to get some other kid to take the cookies and shift the blame to them.

sleazy and, yes, fully expected in today's 'government ethics'. ;(

the government learned it can employ corporations to do its black work.

nice, huh?

Re:the gov is not evil, that othe guy is! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461235)

If you're a hacker this is great!
All you have to do is form an LLC and purchace your internet service through it. On a cable modem you now have indemnity to sniff all data across your node! In many ways this will give true freedom, just no privacy.

Re:the gov is not evil, that othe guy is! (4, Interesting)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461257)

Also the government doesn't need a warrant to access the information & data the ISP has obtained. They conveniently skirt-around the 4th amendment by letting the corporation do the spying.

Re:the gov is not evil, that othe guy is! (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461655)

This gets even more interesting when one considers that the government has become the tool of the corporations; that the center of power is in the boardroom, not in the halls of congress nor in the White House.

Really, the corporations are allowing themselves to spy for themselves so that the corporation's tools can have the information to impose corporate will and power.

(No, I don't hate all corporations; what scares me is the concentration of power in the hands of a very few who are not elected. Good things cannot come of this.)

New Bills Open Doors to Abuse? (2)

intellitech (1912116) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461167)

New Cyber Security Bills Open Door To Gov't, Corporate Abuse

Sorry, but that door you speak of has been broken down, smashed, and burned for a long time.

Nobody in power gives a shit anymore, or they're completely ignorant (and, quite possibly, mentally handicapped).

Re:New Bills Open Doors to Abuse? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461237)

This opens new opportunities for abuse. The language is so broad nobody can know whether what they are doing may be construed as illegal.

Re:New Bills Open Doors to Abuse? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461573)

Just assume everything you do in the United States of Corporate America is illegal. If its not now it will be soon!

John McCain AGAIN?? (4, Insightful)

Dega704 (1454673) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461325)

More IT bills introduced by an old fart that has flat-out admitted his computer illiteracy. Heaven help us.

Re:John McCain AGAIN?? (3, Insightful)

vadim_t (324782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461347)

No, stop staring at the sky, and get off your ass and do something about it.

At least make a donation to the EFF.

Re:John McCain AGAIN?? (2)

Anthony Mouse (1927662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461571)

Good intent, execution could use work. Try it this way next time:

At least make a donation to the EFF. [eff.org] (And consider checking the box to make a monthly donation.)

Re:John McCain AGAIN?? (1)

Dega704 (1454673) | more than 2 years ago | (#39462355)

Indeed I HAVE donated to the EFF. Several times in fact. What exactly made you draw the conclusion that I hadn't? Do enlighten me O wise one.

didn't anyone get the memo (1)

Truekaiser (724672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461449)

That stuff like this is obsolete now that nsa and the cia outsourced themselves to facebook?

Re:didn't anyone get the memo (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461619)

They've got the data, yes.

But they want to be able to use it openly now.

it'll at least wipe out cybercrime, right? (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461669)

New Government Bill Aimed At Vague Threat Turns Out To Benefit Government, Corporations More Than It Actually Protects You Or Me From Vague Threat

Hey! I feel cheated! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461883)

I was told during the last election that McCain is rather ill and would probably not survive the term, so I shouldn't vote for him or the dud bombshell gets to be prez. I guess that's another election promise going unfulfilled.

(just in case you wondered how on earth this could be blamed on Obama)

Lieberman and Mccain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39461893)

American is the most retarded, stupid, ignorant, mind controlled, selfish country on this planet earth..

How you retarded fucking Americans keep electing the SAME jackoffs over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over ..

But Mccain was war hero!!! And lieberman... hes just.. uhh.. well he's the best zionist we got!

The ThreatPost Artcle Seems to Be In Error (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39461895)

Anyone else notice the freudian slip by Brian Donohue, author of the above linked article?

With public awareness about cyber legislation high after the dramatic failure of Stop Online PRIVACY Act (SOPA), interest in- and skepticism of new cybersecurity legislation is on the rise.

Mistaken or on purpose, it is apt.

Anyone else happy Lieberman is NOT POTUS ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39462329)

However, things can and will get even worse if that Mormon liar Romney is elected.

don't you know (1)

johnQ411 (2602763) | more than 2 years ago | (#39464941)

the government is a corporation... the citizens are its employees that's why you are not consulted before wars bailouts or any of the thousands of "illegal" goings on behind the scenes
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>