×

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 CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Even Worse Than SOPA

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the harder-to-pronounce-too dept.

Censorship 234

An anonymous reader writes "As congressmen in Washington consider how to handle the ongoing issue of cyberattacks, some legislators have lent their support to a new act that, if passed, would let the government pry into the personal correspondence of anyone of their choosing. This is SOPA being passed in smaller chunks... 'H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short) has vague definitions that could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

234 comments

Cant stop a moving train (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#39608241)

You can only slow it down as this train is being driven by the federal government with virtually unlimited power, money, and time.. All this stuff ( and more ) will eventually pass and our digital freedom goes out the door.

Just a matter of time. Enjoy it while it lasts.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608295)

Yup, and even if they can't slip it past the public eye, all they need to do is attach it as a rider to the We Love America And The Troops And Kittens Act Of 2013 and it'll pass unanimously.

Conflicted (5, Insightful)

zugmeister (1050414) | about 2 years ago | (#39608305)

On one hand I want to scream at your horrible cynicism and condemn your point of view. On the other hand I think you're completely correct.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (5, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 2 years ago | (#39608311)

agreed, its only a matter of 'which year' is the actual death of the free internet. free as in freedom; I don't give a rat's as about money matters, in this context.

pressure will not stop and sooner or later, we'll lose what we have become used to. we've had some good internet days during the last decade or two; but the government AND big business have teamed up to ruin it.

remember that. remember who really ruined things.

darknets will be the only thing left for truly freedom-based communications.

what a world we have created; or allowed to grow in this direction. so sad that 'money and power is all that matters'.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#39608387)

'that year' has already passed. All that is left is the "I will make it legal" stage of the empire.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608401)

what a world we have created; or allowed to grow in this direction. so sad that 'money and power is all that matters'.

I postulate that money reify power.
That all humanity story is centred around power.
Therefore we have not created the world that way neither did ours ancestors.
Neither did the inventor of money.
Look at nature, it is pretty ugly sometime.
Why would it be any different for us (maybe not you and me personally but us as a specie) ?

Re:Cant stop a moving train (5, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39608547)

agreed, its only a matter of 'which year' is the actual death of the freedom

FTFY.

Freedom is not good for the 1%. They have gone by different names in the past of course. It is a cycle. The 1% grows through abuse after abuse, and gradual poolings of influence and resources.

Eventually they will push it too far and either 1) vastly lower their own standards of living by taking out society with it, at which time they tend to migrate somewhere else (like a virus) or 2) society rears up and kills the fuckers.

Either way, we all end up bloody, a lot of drama, and then come the speeches about how we are going to create a new society in which the past will not repeat itself.

Animal Farm is not a book. It is simple observation of repeating patterns.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (2)

Roogna (9643) | about 2 years ago | (#39609277)

Actually if they really looked at things, which they don't, I don't think it's good for the %1 at all to suppress freedom. By all rights the ultra wealthy that have arisen from within the "free" world are more wealthy and powerful than any dictator or tyrant of history. Freedom of the masses has only actually raised ALL classes up further. This newfound desire to push the middle classes and poor down will most likely only result in the %1 losing massive amounts of their own wealth and power as well.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (5, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | about 2 years ago | (#39608705)

remember that. remember who really ruined things.

- I always remember WHO really ruined the things - those who asked government for bread and circuses and told it that it could do anything as long as it delivered those things.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 2 years ago | (#39609063)

Depends on how you figure it. You could blame Abe Lincoln, or you could blame the law clerk who wrote up the decision of Union Pacific vs. The United States. Good arguments could be made in either case, and in either case they were just reinforcing trends that were already present.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (5, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#39608983)

pressure will not stop and sooner or later, we'll lose what we have become used to. we've had some good internet days during the last decade or two; but the government AND big business have teamed up to ruin it.

Pardon me for saying it, but I've heard the doomsday prediction that the "wild wild west" days of the Internet is coming to a close now since shortly after I got on in the 90s. Double that after 9/11. P2P was going to die after Napster and torrents were going to die after Suprnova and TPB and most recently file hosting was to die with Megaupload. I don't see that any of that has happened. The music industry has given up DRM protection, the video industry is still in denial but BluRay looks to be practically broken so 1080p content will be on P2P for the foreseeable future and we still got root on our PCs and now on Android on the mobile. The world is not full of Trusted Computing and Remote Attestation to get on the Internet that was supposed to be "imminent".

Their legal campaigns have also honestly not scared many, they're consistently meeting opposition in the courts and so are all their "graduated response" aka "three strikes, you're out" laws except France who surrenders as usual. They can't significantly increase the chance of getting caught - particularly with the explosion it people file sharing - and they won't get public support for the death penalty for file sharing. It's gone beyond the point where they can effectively combat in the courts and people generally react badly to that kind of arbitrary, excessive punishment to the small minority that does get caught.

I honestly think they're losing year for year, with a population that is less and less likely to accept these restrictions. They still haven't "tamed" the first generation of online people and for each year a year of young people can vote and old people die out. It takes a long, long time - from first vote to average life span we're talking 60 years or so and we're maybe 15 years into it since Internet got "mainstream". If there was an election today in Germany the Pirate Party would enter parliament (they've already entered two state parliaments), no offense to my neighbors Sweden but that's a 8-9x bigger country and a leading force in the EU, far stronger than two MEPs in the European Parliament. Meanwhile bandwidth gets faster and cheaper, software gets smarter most bills to store traffic data has died on the drawing board.

My impression is also that more than more places are offering customary wifi service, go into any coffee shop, burger joint, pizza place, gas station, buses, trains, airports, airplanes, hotels, motels or pretty much any company office and they have a wifi for you. True, the number of open home wifis may have declined somewhat but overall I'd say your options are more not fewer. Not to mention that with faster connections even using proxies and whatnot slowing them down you still get decent speeds, the content you want is relatively constant in size. Currently I have 60/60 Mbit and in all honestly (and my inner geek screams to accept this) I'd have zero use for a 1000 Mbit line. Okay I'd have to wait a few seconds shorter on the occasions that I do wait but my total downloads would probably not go up at all.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609205)

So I'm guessing you are from somewhere like Norway where the concentration of money and power isn't high enough that the global elite have started turning the screws so much yet. I've got news for you pal, the list of those nice fluffy 'free' countries gets shorter every year. The pirate party is a small group of nerds pissing in front of a large rhino that isn't inconvenienced enough to pay them any attention yet. They really should have followed through with that Sealand idea, its ridiculous naiveity would have suited them perfectly.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (2)

Thing 1 (178996) | about 2 years ago | (#39609435)

Okay I'd have to wait a few seconds shorter on the occasions that I do wait but my total downloads would probably not go up at all.

Exactly: there is a limit to the speed at which you can consume it. Granted, there may be an "initial hoarding experience" but after you've spent a few thousand on hard drives that keep dying, you'll realize that it mostly makes sense to hoard at the rate at which you can realistically consume (and also, evaluate and discard -- hoarding has its price as well).

Re:Cant stop a moving train (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608317)

yeah you can. you tear up the tracks.

End of the cloud (5, Insightful)

xtal (49134) | about 2 years ago | (#39608321)

Laws like this are the defacto end of cloud computing if you have an obligation to protect your data.

Or rather.. and end to it in the USA.

Next up; crypto is for terrorists and child pornographers!

Re:End of the cloud (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608479)

Next up; crypto is for terrorists and child pornographers!

Bout time someone brought this up! Crypto needs to be taken out so people can't continue peddling smut and evil plans pla---
Oh you were being sarcastic.

Re:End of the cloud (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608681)

Next up; crypto is for terrorists and child pornographers!

This is old news and even has a label:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse

Re:End of the cloud (2)

Teun (17872) | about 2 years ago | (#39608691)

I'm using OwnCloud [owncloud.org], a nice little KDE project that through WebDav even works on Windows and I'm sure my data stays out of the US or any other government controlled server.

how to stop this (2)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 2 years ago | (#39608327)

1- get 10,000 people together. 2- they agree to vote as a block. 3- tell congress critter pass this law and you get the votes. money isn't the only way to win, you can get the same results with voting blocks.

Re:how to stop this (3, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 2 years ago | (#39608433)

But money can be turned into TV, radio and other advertising, which can buy many more than 10,000 votes.

Re:how to stop this (2)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#39608461)

Not to mention sabotage one's enemies.

Don't be deluded into thinking that the media is all carrots for the powerful. If need be, it will use sticks too.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 2 years ago | (#39608345)

Perhaps, or perhaps this was inevitable. One can draw direct parallels of crimes between the 1800s- and now and internet crimes.
Do I like that a non-regulated entity, such as the government which can claim all sorts of reasons to keep information and secrets, has access to this information?
Nope
Do I have a choice?
Yes. I can stop using the internet, or limit my actions on the internet so that we revert back to the 1990s. I mean, it is illegal for the government to open my mail.
And even though we as normal citizens see a direct connection between internet messages and mail, we are still left with few options.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (4, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | about 2 years ago | (#39608563)

Once they have the electronic prescedent they will consider physical mail and media ways to circumvent the 'legitimate' surveillance of the information interchange system. Expect to get it opened.

It's painful that we'll get the slide into totalitarianism in our lifetime. Perhaps it's time to stop fighting it and join up; if we rush it along we can get through the party-with-paramilitary wing stage and grind the populace under the jackboots for a dozen years, then into the total war stage in a dozen years, get a collapse and revolution and then Never Again for another fifty years.

And hey, totalitarian imagery has it's charm.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

element-o.p. (939033) | about 2 years ago | (#39608901)

I mean, it is illegal for the government to open my mail.

And who delivers the mail for you?

Q.E.D.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

msheekhah (903443) | about 2 years ago | (#39608359)

Here's a solution. Once this passes, everyone cancel their internet service. All of it. Use work internet because we don't pay for it, but cancel all of our residential internet. Instead of blacking out the internet, we just quit the internet. An internet not worth browsing is marginally different than no internet.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

philip.paradis (2580427) | about 2 years ago | (#39609143)

Use work internet because we don't pay for it

Once people start getting fired for doing that, they won't have to worry about paying for a lot of things. Also, the number of people who will actually do what you're advocating is vanishingly small compared to the population at large. You're dealing with people who genuinely don't care.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608381)

The way to fight legal snooping isn't to fight each and every snooping bill. Eventually one will pass. The way is to make a law saying the oppposite, a guarantee of privacy bill. Offense>defense.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608537)

Indeed, it seems we reliving the dark ages... with no renaissance at sight. BTW, "renaissance" IIRC means "rebirth" (of culture, in reference to how advanced the Classical Greeks were).

Now, that said, let's have in mind it's not an international phenomenon. Even some First World nations are not that affected (like e.g. those north of the Netherlands). The catch is that the USA are kind of a Central Station for cultural interchange (as England and France were in the past), so we're in for some deep trouble. Were it possible to bypass the USA while it sunks to deeper ignorance, we could live somehow almost unscathed and could even help the USA get out of darkness sooner.

But that would involve finding another nation able to host libraries, standards and organizations which are key to the world. Switzerland already does that and with a multiple language tradition could prove to be an ideal candidate for such role. Another one would be possibly be Norway (the language has been argued to be easy to learn for English-speakers), but with the recent episodes of US pressure on it... I doubt they'd be able to defend themselves.

Oh, well. Another problem is that Freedom requires a determined defense, which used to be easy to get in the USA but it's not often given its deserving value throughout the world. Germany now has such a context which puts Freedom as a first quality asset, but I frankly don't know how long it can be sustained. Maybe a France+Germany+Switzerland joint effort might work...

Re:Cant stop a moving train (2)

Nefarious Wheel (628136) | about 2 years ago | (#39608685)

... The catch is that the USA are kind of a Central Station for cultural interchange

Was. I think the word is was .

-- Just some English-speaking foreigner

Re:Cant stop a moving train (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609253)

>>>>... The catch is that the USA are kind of a Central Station for cultural interchange

> Was. I think the word is was .

> -- Just some English-speaking foreigner

Maybe you're right in the sense we need another interchange node - which leaves the question of what language to use... Esperanto?

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

stanlyb (1839382) | about 2 years ago | (#39608637)

But once the train is out of rails, it is just a matter of time before the whole composition collapse, and nothing in the world could save them.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608749)

You can derail a train or dispose of the conductor.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

TimothyDavis (1124707) | about 2 years ago | (#39608779)

What we should probably look into is getting a constitutional amendment put into place that explicitly protects rights. Otherwise, it is only a matter of time before laws are put into place that take away our freedom.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (4, Insightful)

spottedkangaroo (451692) | about 2 years ago | (#39608851)

I can't help but feeling like this has already been done. Seems to me it was a couple hundred years before computers, but the meaning was clear enough.

Surrender Monkeys (5, Insightful)

Phoenix666 (184391) | about 2 years ago | (#39608893)

Guys, let's stop thinking like Surrender Monkeys when it comes to SOPA and the government. Congressmen are just politicians and almost without exception very stupid people. They make knee-jerk decisions based on how many drinks lobbyists bought them at the bar the night before. But they are most definitely very susceptible to the prospect of pitchfork-waving crowds, eager to nail their hides to the barn door.

Look at what happened with the last SOPA showdown. The backlash was so severe and massive that Congress was practically pissing itself to run away from that bill. We, by their standards, melted their phone lines and crashed their Blackberries.

Last time we had Google and Wikipedia and other high-traffic sites leading the charge, but we can't count on them doing it again next time or to not make a deal with Hollywood/the RIAA.

We can create the perception of a groundswell preemptively. We can give them a taste of their own medicine preemptively, the very same medicine they would foist on us. If they want to subject us to crap like this, let's hijack their individual Blackberries and let them feel what it's like to have this done to them by anonymous strangers.

Honestly when I read sentiments like, "Oh well, the government is going to screw us no matter what we do so let's give up now," it reminds me of that scene from Swingers

Trent: You know what you are? You're like a big bear with claws and with fangs...
Sue: ...big fucking teeth, man.
Trent: Yeah... big fuckin' teeth on ya'. And she's just like this little bunny, who's just kinda cowering in the corner.
Sue: Shivering.
Trent: Yeah, man just kinda... you know, you got these claws and you're staring at these claws and your thinking to yourself, and with these claws you're thinking, "How am I supposed to kill this bunny, how am I supposed to kill this bunny?"
Sue: And you're poking at it, you're poking at it...
Trent: Yeah, you're not hurting it. You're just kinda gently batting the bunny around, you know what I mean? And the bunny's scared Mike, the bunny's scared of you, shivering.
Sue: And you got these fucking claws and these fangs...
Trent: And you got these fucking claws and these fangs, man! And you're looking at your claws and you're looking at your fangs. And you're thinking to yourself, you don't know what to do, man. "I don't know how to kill the bunny." With *this* you don't know how to kill the bunny, do you know what I mean?

For pete's sake, people, we're the people who run the central nervous system of the world. How is it that we psych ourselves out over stuff like this? We should be able to mold the government like putty. And it would help that every time we send them a message we put a common tagline like "Free America!" so that they understand it's a spontaneous expression from the electorate that they're fucking up and better straighten up and fly right.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609045)

A pity they don't realize--if they don't stop the train, the peasants will derail it. It will be worse for both labor and capital.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (1)

rvw (755107) | about 2 years ago | (#39609067)

You can only slow it down as this train is being driven by the federal government with virtually unlimited power, money, and time.. All this stuff ( and more ) will eventually pass and our digital freedom goes out the door.

Just a matter of time. Enjoy it while it lasts.

I just read an article [volkskrant.nl] in the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant about a 17 year old that hacked into the Netherlands biggest phone provider. He tells about two FBI officers being permanently stationed at the Dutch national cybercrime team. He tells it as if it helps the Dutch, but I'm pretty sure it will help the US more. "Our" digital freedom? Even in the EU - it's gone!

Re:Cant stop a moving train (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609391)

I don't believe that the power to pass these bills is coming from the will of the government. The political will is coming from senators whom have financial stakes, i.e. they are corrupt and willing to do the bidding of a private company not the people. Certainly I agree that there is a significant risk associated with cyber crime, but really, will details of that crime be found in our emails? I think not.

Re:Cant stop a moving train (5, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 2 years ago | (#39609431)

You can only slow it down as this train is being driven by the federal government with virtually unlimited power, money, and time..

The "federal government" isn't writing these bills, the corporations are. And with the new unlimited power to influence elections, only pro-corporate candidates will hold office. These laws are written in secret, by unknown people, and passed in the dark of night.

If you look at the one thing that has changed in the past 80 years, making the government's power onerous, it has been the growing influence of corporations, not just in national elections, but at every level of government down to the school board. I only recently learned that corporate money, Citizens United-style, is not being put into school board elections in parts of the US.

You can limit the power of government all you want, and it's not going to change a thing. We'll just end up dealing with private police, accountable to no one but unelected (and unelectable) corporate entities. You have to know your enemy, and the enemy is the corporatist.

My theory is easily testable: pass public funding of elections, amend the constitution to change "person" to "natural person". Codify "corporations are not people" and "money is not speech" and I believe we'd go a long way toward rolling back the most onerous aspects of what is currently being called the "too-powerful government".

You know, we could also make a huge difference if we just started showing up, in numbers too big to hide in "free speech zones", and started scaring the shit out of the people who are elected.

It's impossible to scare a corporations when we're not even customers of many of the most powerful corporations. But it's relatively easy to scare an elected official, just by showing up. Not signing online petitions. Not blogging about it. Not forwarding angry emails, but by getting up, getting out of the house and go stand in front of the buildings where these politicians do their business.

First... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608247)

CISPA sucks and thata sucks!

Only restrict, never grant. (5, Insightful)

DrkShadow (72055) | about 2 years ago | (#39608293)

"This is SOPA being passed in smaller chunks."

So long as all law is made solely to restrict people and _never_to recagnize rights or prevent abuses such as this, it will just be attempt after attempt until a given law passes. It is absolutely inevitable.

Congress must enact law that supercedes any prior or later law indicating that personal communications CANNOT be intercepted with anything short of a court order. This, for the various things that are trying to be passed now. Only when they have to fight for the revokation of these protective laws before they can bribe their desired laws into affect will we be in any way safe.

But it'll never happen.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (1)

HairyNevus (992803) | about 2 years ago | (#39608391)

Congress must enact law that supercedes any prior or later law indicating that personal communications CANNOT be intercepted with anything short of a court order.

We wish. Too bad the checks and balances system doesn't include a way for the people to have a say in what lawmakers do...oh wait -- voting! Damn it, that was our "balance"? Too bad the ineffectiveness of that wasn't foreseen. 'Course it would have taken foreseeing 21st century news networks and an amalgamation of other influences to politics to understand how voting being the only power "We The People" wield falls short.

...I guess we still have protests (lol).

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#39608477)

Perhaps we can agree that voting works fine... it's the people doing the voting that are fucking broken.

"Oprah says you're a good person if you vote this way!", and "Glenn Beck says you're an enemy of the state unless you vote this way!", wouldn't matter much if people weren't so lazy and uninterested as to reduce national politics to a stupid sporting event.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (2)

RussR42 (779993) | about 2 years ago | (#39608971)

I'm not sure if I can agree with that... How often do you hear "I'm voting for x so that y doesn't win" or that voting 3rd party is a waste of your vote? Voting to choose between two candidates that will do the same thing doesn't really "work fine."

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#39609215)

Again, that sounds like a deficiency with the voters, not the voting bit of checks and balances.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (1)

RussR42 (779993) | about 2 years ago | (#39609279)

Ahrg. You are correct*. I was thinking more that there may be better ways to design the voting system, but even with the present method those two choices were still picked by voters in the first place. And I would agree that we can still save it all bloodlessly and within the current government system if enough people pay attention.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (4, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 2 years ago | (#39609083)

That's just silly. You have NO options when you vote in our 2 party system. Glen Beck and Oprah serve to focus your attention on non-issues, get your riled up about them so you'll participate in a completely meaningless process. The 2 parties have the entire system fixed so that no 3rd party can get involved in any way. They'd have you believe the most important topics of the day are completely pointless issues that no-one can do anything about, like "Jobs" There isn't a president in history that's "created" a Job. Who can we vote for that wont raise our taxes to even more ridiculous heights? Who can we vote for that wont invade yet another 3rd world country? Who can we vote for that wont have a whose-who of special interest groups visiting their office daily? The only special interest group they should be listening to is the constituency that elected them to office.

If you're voting for Republicans or Democrats, YOU are the problem.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (3, Insightful)

tbird81 (946205) | about 2 years ago | (#39609157)

As a non-American, I always wonder how I'd vote.

You've got one party full of fundamentalist Christians wanting to control how other people live their lives. On the other side you've got a bunch of pretend-Christians, who'll let media companies get whatever they want, maintain wars, spend money bailing out big-business, and doing the same as a other team except spending more money in the process.

If I only had the choice between those two, I'd vote Dems (because they seem slightly less religious). But I'd vote for a third party.

It may seem like a wasted vote, but the real wasted votes are for the Democrats or Republicans - doesn't matter which you chose, it's a waste.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (2)

SomePgmr (2021234) | about 2 years ago | (#39609173)

I suspect we feel about the same on it. I'm aggravated by the situation as it is, but it seems like something that wouldn't be broken if you could count on the voters to act more rationally.

Though I agree, you can't. So I guess I'll concede that the system itself is broken, if only in that it relies on people making decisions that are in their own best interest.

Unfortunately, even that leaves us with, "What better alternative exists that wouldn't also rely on people making good decisions?" Assuming, of course, you don't believe "benevolent dictatorships" to be an appropriate solution.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (4, Interesting)

dkleinsc (563838) | about 2 years ago | (#39609333)

There isn't a president in history that's "created" a Job.

You're mostly right, except for this part. Any time a president pushes through a bill that boosts either direct or indirect federal hiring, he creates a job. For instance, when Franklin Roosevelt created the CCC, he most definitely created jobs. When Ronald Reagan put significant cash into missile defense, even though nothing worked it still created jobs.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609201)

The ineffectiveness of voting was foreseen. Why do you think the founders added the second amendment? Was it to protect merely against external threat?

Is it time for an amendment to the Constitution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608399)

Denying unlawful search and seizure of any digital transmission?

Re:Is it time for an amendment to the Constitution (4, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | about 2 years ago | (#39608443)

There's an amendment for that already, the fourth. The problem is that requiring constitutionality of legislation doesn't mean anything if the judiciary doesn't defend it, and when it comes to this the courts are totally fucking useless.

Re:Only restrict, never grant. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608453)

Why do you say this? Historically it is inaccurate. If you really care then get involved, vote for people who have morals and ethics, quit letting the media tell you who's worth voting for and who isn't. Stop being a sheep. Help get legislation in place to stop bills like this. Beat them to the punch, or lay down and give up.

Pass STFU (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608307)

I wish they would pass a bill called STFU (Stop Trying To Fuckup the Unternet).

Of course (3, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | about 2 years ago | (#39608331)

The oligarchies of the world do a fair job of controlling media, but they can't control blogs or twitter. They need governments to make sure they can do this for them.

I think we're on the edge of a change in how modern democracies work. They can't continue on their current form. They never really did a good job of representing the people anyway, it's just that since the proliferation of the internet, everyone is much more aware of this fact.

Re:Of course (3, Insightful)

FudRucker (866063) | about 2 years ago | (#39608367)

RE:"since the proliferation of the internet, everyone is much more aware of this fact."

yup, the cat is out of the bag, I wonder how civilization will react when the government starts destroying free speech on the internet in their lame attempt at putting the cat back in the bag.

Re:Of course (2)

Apothem (1921856) | about 2 years ago | (#39608375)

The real question is how far are people willing to go to do something about it? Will it be truly peaceful, or will we end up having to get into a civil war with our own military first?

Re:Of course (4, Insightful)

dbet (1607261) | about 2 years ago | (#39608397)

During the enlightenment, we had a period of about 100 years where Europe went from almost all monarchy to almost all democracy. How many of those were peaceful? Surely some of them.

Also, information works both ways. If you know your citizens are on the eve of mass riots, you might get radical changes before any actual violence begins.

Re:Of course (1)

Apothem (1921856) | about 2 years ago | (#39608459)

Also, information works both ways. If you know your citizens are on the eve of mass riots, you might get radical changes before any actual violence begins.

Heh you put it very well indeed. I never thought about that side of the coin really. If it can be stated and shown without major incident, you may be right. Best of all, even the possibility of that is something that shows how far we've gotten. At least there is a chance.

Re:Of course (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 2 years ago | (#39608709)

"how far are people willing to go to do something about it?"
Problem is most people are unaware, less us slashdotters, or don't care or both. There are more of them than there are us. And by the time they figure it out the horse has already left the barn. Don't forget too, people are sheep.

Read the Bill before commenting, please (2)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608333)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3523:

Note that the bill simply allows the national intelligence community to provide classified threat information to ISP's. There is no provision in the bill for the ISP's to provide any information back to the government.

Now, it is co-sponsered by that idiot bachmann, but that doesn't make it ipso facto bad.

Re:Read the Bill before commenting, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608371)

Read part (b) of the bill; that covers sharing information with the government.

Re:Read the Bill before commenting, please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608429)

The key word is that the ISP MAY share information with the government. I don't think that this is requiring the ISPs to share anything. Basically this bill seems to be aimed at allowing the classified threats to be shared with ISPs so ISPs can block those threats. I would think the proper response would have been to just make those threats unclassified, instead of drafting a bill to share classified information with ISPs...but nobody likes to declassify anything in the government.

Re:Read the Bill before commenting, please (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608919)

Baby steps, you must take baby steps to erode rights away. Besides, corporate america and the US government are almost one in the same these days, it's only a matter of the left and right hand working better together.

Re:Read the Bill before commenting, please (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609443)

The key word is that the ISP MAY share information with the government. I don't think that this is requiring the ISPs to share anything.

I think the rest of your post is fine, but you're being awfully naive about "MAY".

Old system:
.gov: "We can haz data?"
.com: "Not without a warrant. That's illegal. Our customers would sue us."
.gov: "Only if they found out. We're not gonna tell anyone, and you're not gonna tell anyone, right?"
Qwest: "Fuck you guys [wikipedia.org], we're still not breaking the law." .com: "I guess we're damned if we do, and just as damned if we don't. We'll grudgingly give you the data."

Under CISPA, the ISP is immune from liability. So it goes more like:

.gov: "We can haz data?"
.com: "Not without a warrant."
.gov: "Even if our request was illegal, the law says you can't get sued for helping us break the law. Remember what happened last time [wikipedia.org] someone decided not to help us break the law?"
.com: "One 18-wheeler full of backup tapes, comin' up!"

Communication? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608419)

I thought it was ruled that internet traffic was data and therefore not controlled by wiretapping laws. Now suddenly its "communication" again so that they can "stop any online communication"?

The price of freedom... (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | about 2 years ago | (#39608427)

..is eternal vigilance. Did you think they were just pretty words?

Re:The price of freedom... (5, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 2 years ago | (#39608603)

That's the down payment. The full price is much higher.

What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated.

Re:The price of freedom... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609133)

Not really. They are pretty words. The price of control is eternal vigilance, and it still fails.

I dare quote Orwell (from Shooting an Elephant [online-literature.com], bold added):

[...] Here was I, the white man with his gun, standing in front of the unarmed native crowd – seemingly the leading actor of the piece; but in reality I was only an absurd puppet pushed to and fro by the will of those yellow faces behind. I perceived in this moment that when the white man turns tyrant it is his own freedom that he destroys. He becomes a sort of hollow, posing dummy, the conventionalized figure of a sahib. For it is the condition of his rule that he shall spend his life in trying to impress the "natives," and so in every crisis he has got to do what the "natives" expect of him. He wears a mask, and his face grows to fit it. I had got to shoot the elephant. [...]

Hmm (1)

lightknight (213164) | about 2 years ago | (#39608435)

Fascinating: The government is going to deal with those experiencing fear of loss of privacy & general disgust at the government's actions by granting itself more power, so it can invade the privacy of and engage in various ethnically-questionable / morally-casual actions towards those experiencing fear of loss of privacy & general disgust at the government's actions, so that it can manage their fear & disgust at its actions.

Gentlemen, I believe we have reached 'equilibrium.'

which presidential candidates would sign this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608499)

obama: yes
romney: yes
santorum: yes
ron paul: no

if this gets voted into law and you didn't vote for the one guy that would stop it, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Re:which presidential candidates would sign this? (1)

Ultra64 (318705) | about 2 years ago | (#39609109)

Why would anyone throw their vote away voting for Ron Paul?

Re:which presidential candidates would sign this? (1)

tbird81 (946205) | about 2 years ago | (#39609187)

Why would you throw your vote away voting for anyone else?

I'm not from the States, so don't know much about the candidates, but even though he might have some silly beliefs regarding certain things (but then all of your candidates essentially have to be Christian), he at least seems to want less government control.

Summary (1)

WhatAreYouDoingHere (2458602) | about 2 years ago | (#39608525)

monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties

Personally, I think the government (and maybe some private parties too) should be disrupted. No, I didn't read the article (ha!)

"Vague Definitions" (3, Informative)

Cazekiel (1417893) | about 2 years ago | (#39608533)

The word 'vague' in this alone scares me. There was a super-ridiculous kerfluffle in livejournal.com years ago, which is historically noted as 'Strikethrough 2007' to those who were affected by it. One complaint from a religious-based family group, concerned with Harry Potter being portrayed in "precarious positions" both in fanfiction and artwork, sent a ripple-effect through the site. It went from deleting a few users without warning (causing a strikethrough in their username) to a basic witch-hunt, with hundreds of users--some paid accounts, or even those who footed the bill for expensive permanent accounts--being deleted, when most didn't have anything but 'harry potter' and 'fanfiction' listed in their profile's interests section. Very few involved the younger crowd at Hogwarts in sexualized-artwork. Simply implying that you were interested in Potter-based communities (even some not related to the Potter-universe itself) within the site fueled enough panic from the livejournal staff.

Funniest part was, it was done while The Boss Of Them was out for the weekend. When he returned, he gave massive apologies and reinstated users unfairly deleted. Still, the "event" lingers in the back of everyone's mind five years later.

Re:"Vague Definitions" (1)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 2 years ago | (#39608801)

Of course all thees laws are vague, because thees congress critters proudly admit they have no clue how the internet works, both technically and socially. All they have is big media and greedy thugs telling them this is the right thing to do. They look at all the zeros on the checks they receive from said entities and say "Yes they must be correct and the internet is too free and open. My gosh anyone of the %99 can express their opinion! It has no place in our profit driven power hungry society. And this is exactly why they don't want to know.

Re:"Vague Definitions" (1)

Cazekiel (1417893) | about 2 years ago | (#39608955)

It reminds me of the movie 'August', wherein 'old money' meets the internet-financial world by the end... only Old Money takes over with finesse and precision. The fact that David Bowie played the ringleader of the company made me cringe and smile evilly at the same time.

Re:"Vague Definitions" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609003)

The word 'vague' in this alone scares me. There was a super-ridiculous kerfluffle in livejournal.com years ago, which is historically noted as 'Strikethrough 2007' to those who were affected by it. One complaint from a religious-based family group, concerned with Harry Potter being portrayed in "precarious positions" both in fanfiction and artwork, sent a ripple-effect through the site. It went from deleting a few users without warning (causing a strikethrough in their username) to a basic witch-hunt, with hundreds of users--some paid accounts, or even those who footed the bill for expensive permanent accounts--being deleted, when most didn't have anything but 'harry potter' and 'fanfiction' listed in their profile's interests section. Very few involved the younger crowd at Hogwarts in sexualized-artwork. Simply implying that you were interested in Potter-based communities (even some not related to the Potter-universe itself) within the site fueled enough panic from the livejournal staff.

Funniest part was, it was done while The Boss Of Them was out for the weekend. When he returned, he gave massive apologies and reinstated users unfairly deleted. Still, the "event" lingers in the back of everyone's mind five years later.

'vague' is what "An anonymous reader" writes. If you are scared of what random people on the Internet write, it would be best for your mental health if you stop visiting here.

Sue them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608837)

Since the STUPID FUCKING AMERICANS seem to think that they own the internet, can we just sue the U.S. into bankruptcy for hosting all the illegal shit they are so concerned about? Possession is like 99% of the law, right? THEY LOOK GUILTY TO ME!

Sue hollywood too since they make all those illegal movies.

MY LOGIC IS INFALLIBLE!

Re:Sue them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609243)

Goddamnit, stop blaming Americans for the idiots we have in office. Not all of us are at fault. Some of us "threw away" our votes on sane individuals who risked their mental health to run for office and make things better.

Captcha: proceeds

At the risk of being hunted down... (5, Insightful)

idbeholda (2405958) | about 2 years ago | (#39608921)

When legislation like this crops up again, after we, the people have already said "No" emphatically, then the legislators supporting this particular shit show need to be immediately, physically and forcibly removed from any and all offices. Period. There is no interest in national security here, this is merely an attempt to grasp at straws. Seeing this kind of crap being birthed from the loins of political prostitutes (even though they're basically the same thing) honestly makes me ashamed to admit that I live in the United States.

I'm sure that our forefathers would say the exact same thing. Anyone who genuinely believes that this trainwreck of an idea is a good thing either needs to have their head examined or is being paid by a corporation and/or consortium. Fucking goddamn, this pisses me off.

IP is worthless (3, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | about 2 years ago | (#39608951)

All copyrights, patents, and trademarks are used for these days is for Big Business as weapons to skewer and brain-bash people they don't like, be it competition, criticism, or anyone else that doesn't subscribe to whatever dogma is mandated by the company's bottom line. It seems that the fastest way to ruin is to piss off a corporation.

The stunt that UMG pulled against the Mega Upload video is proof of that, as is the Geohot and Scrolls lawsuits. Both of which by the way were won by big companies with a lot of weight to throw around squashing the little guys with their legal muscles and intimidating them into giving up without a fight.

Considering that TBP is getting sponsors in record numbers (no pun intended) for its ad banner program I think it's quite clear by now that only abusive companies really have any interest in strengthening IP laws.

What should we do now (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608965)

So.

What can we do which is bigger than the blackout?

I don't want to believe we don't stand a chance. We have to keep fighting.

Re:What should we do now (1)

JockTroll (996521) | about 2 years ago | (#39609167)

Bigger than the blackout? The burnout. Burn down your workplace, destroy the equipment that makes it work, destroy the financial records. You need enough people for this to be effective but you must be willing to destroy your lifestyle forever in order to make Big Money's pillars to shake. Imagine Wall Street, burning. The offices, burning. The buildings, burning. The accountants, burning...

Re:What should we do now (2)

sjames (1099) | about 2 years ago | (#39609235)

Disconnect Washington D.C. from the net? Shut down ALL telecommunications in D.C.? The blackout was a simple peaceful protest.

Does it seem to you (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39608975)

Does it seem to you that the three branches of the Federal Government are having a contest to see who can destroy America the fastest?

I will have to find another source (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609005)

I will not say this article is incorrect, but we are only given one link and I will find another source before simply beleiving the info in the given link. The link is to RT and, like many media sources, I have found some of their past articles to be questionable in either bias or the level of understanding the authors have in the actual subject matter. It is always a good thing to question sources and motives when it comes to media.

Regardless, this is still something I should research.

freedom isn't freedom (3, Interesting)

alienzed (732782) | about 2 years ago | (#39609107)

I keep seeing people protesting with huge signs with the words 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' on them. I mean, who buys that BS anymore anyway? There's no such thing as freedom, and 'liberty' in what sense? You can't be completely free and still expect society to be safe, I mean, what about the freedom to kill? The freedom to feed oneself at the expense of another creature or someone else? Hopefully someday we'll have a third party, the Realist party. Until society can handle to not believe in noble lies, we're doomed to mediocrity. On a side note, I thought of a great analogy to show what's wrong with capitalism today. The original expression: If you give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for life. The capitalist version: If you sell a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, or give a man a fish, you'll go out of business.

Re:freedom isn't freedom (3, Interesting)

SuperTechnoNerd (964528) | about 2 years ago | (#39609395)

I love your fish analogy.. How about:

If you teach a man to fish, or give a man a fish, you both get slapped with a massive law suit.

Move to Amend (5, Informative)

Linsaran (728833) | about 2 years ago | (#39609209)

See, this is what happens when we allow corporations to have a 'voice' in politics by spending money on campaign contributions. A law which was suppressed by overwhelming public opposition (SOPA) can creep back into the system because there are some (arguably powerful) corporations in favor of it.

I support (along with a lot of other people) amending the constitution to get rid of this kind of loophole. I think the Move To Amend [movetoamend.org] people got the right idea.

With an amendment like that in place maybe we'd actually see candidates pandering to their constituents instead of whatever corporate interests contributed the most to their campaign fund.

This is what you get, statists (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609225)

Just the other day I was reading a large majority here on Slashdot pathetically cheering on the FDA to regulate popcorn at movie theaters. Yet when the government comes to stomp on the favorite freedoms of computer nerds--the whining can be heard across interstellar space. Well here's the deal folks: This is what you get with government. When you unleash it on the other guy, sooner or later it comes back to bite your ass. Until you get this and learn to stop asking for government to solve social problems, you are a part of the problem--statism. So don't whine about SOPA or DMCA or whatever alphabet soup bullshit they think up next, unless you have first established a consistent set of principles of what government is, what it should and should not do, or whether or not it should even exist. And no, "government should regulate that over there that I don't like or that greedy corporation that I'm so afraid of despite the fact that I can just choose to not buy its products, but don't interfere with what I want to do, and by the way, gimme some stuff for free!" is not a principle. It's dishonesty, and the fuel upon which statism feeds. Yet it is a concise summary of the philosophical mush that inhabits the minds of, not so ironically, 99% of the population. Good luck keeping your freedom. Too bad luck isn't going to be enough.

There can be no compromise for limited government. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609287)

SOPA is being passed in small pieces. The ONLY answer is limited government, folks. There is no middle ground. "When men reduce their virtues to the approximate, then evil acquires the force of an absolute, when loyalty to an unyielding purpose is dropped by the virtuous, it’s picked up by scoundrels—and you get the indecent spectacle of a cringing, bargaining, traitorous good and a self-righteously uncompromising evil." - Ayn Rand, Galt's Speech For the New Intellectual.

Since even the DOD network is compromised, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609359)

A recent DOD audit found that even the DOD network is completely compromised.

The government has demonstrated time and time again that they can't keep information secure or prevent abuses. There have already been convictions for Social Security employees collecting benefits of dead people, IRS employees stealing the tax refunds of citizens, DMV employees selling personal info to organized crime for identity theft and even FBI employees selling state secrets to the enemy in time of war. Do we even need to mention the convicted pedophiles the TSA hired to molest children?

The logical thing would be to bar all government access of confidential data unless they can demonstrate an immediate and specific need to a judge, who can then issue a warrant.

As it turns out, that's exactly what the Founders of the US did. Electronic documents may be new but government corruption and abuse never changes and must always be guarded against.

I've got an idea for a new law - any holder of government office or authority convicted of accepting any gift or renumeration should be stripped of office and citizenship. Why would they object unless they are accepting bribes?

Encryption is a partial answer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609399)

ENCRYPT ALL THE THINGS!11!!1!!

http://encrypteverything.ca/index.php/Main_Page

They can beat your key out of you, but it becomes more difficult to spy on you without your knowledge.

STOP DROP and give me 50 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39609419)

Ok first off I want to say "PEOPLE IN GENERAL ARE LAZY"

Lazy is just a generic word these days, because it really doesnt describe the level of retardation in society. To many people bitching and moaning, and whining about how the government is screwing them over.

HEY ASSHOLES!!! WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE GOVERNMENT!!!

The only way shit changes with big brother is if we stand up and tell them straight up. "STOP"

The reason this shit is happening, is because everyone is cowering behind a goddamn keyboard, rather than getting off their ass, going to the library. Finding out how to write a proper letter of protest.

Submitting it to the Representative.

Than going to the newspapers, and radio shows, and trying to recruit like minded individuals. To follow suit. To create public awareness.

The more people, the better. If you really want to fight this, and you really want to prevent this. STAND UP, GET OFF YOUR ASS. DO SOMETHING. MOVE!

Protesting injustice is a constitutional right.
We the people, for the people working and fighting for freedom.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...