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!

Why CISPA Is a Really Bad Bill

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the must-be-the-comic-sans-font dept.

Government 142

We've heard recently of CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a bill currently making its way through Congress that many are calling the latest incarnation of SOPA. Reader SolKeshNaranek points out an article at Techdirt explaining exactly why this bill is bad, and how its backers are trying to deflect criticism by using language that's different and rather vague. Quoting: "The bill defines 'cybersecurity systems' and 'cyber threat information' as anything to do with protecting a network from: '(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.' It's easy to see how that definition could be interpreted to include things that go way beyond network security — specifically, copyright policing systems at virtually any point along a network could easily qualify."

cancel ×

142 comments

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

Why? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638459)

Why must we have overbearing, obsequious legislators whose only goals seem to be to annoy, obfuscate, and make dirty money? The power to expel a Congressman should extend to anyone in the US with at least a given number of supporters.

____________
Please.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638477)

Why?

Dopamine. It's that simple.

Re:Why? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638493)

You know what's worse? Some normal people actually support it. They don't even care about collateral damage. They want the so-called "criminals" stopped no matter what. Basically, as long as the copyright infringers are punished, it doesn't matter to them how many innocent people are also unfairly punished (sometimes having their internet shut off, for instance) or accused.

Some people just love collective punishment. Makes me sick.

Re:Why? (0)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639701)

Indeed. And we call those people 'masochists.'

Re:Why? (1)

ppanon (16583) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641247)

You must mean sadists. True masochists aren't really into collective punishments. They're more like Ben from Monty Python's Life of Brian, and get upset if somebody gets punished more than they do [montypython.net] .

<mutter>Lucky Bastard.</mutter>

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641095)

The problem is that what these "criminals" are doing shouldn't be criminal. The real crimes are happening because the criminals have changed the laws to do their bidding.

Re:Why? (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638611)

What are the requirements and restrictions on running for Congress?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638681)

Requirement: A million dollars.
Disqualification: Openly admitting that you don't believe in fairy tales.

Re:Why? (5, Insightful)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639243)

Good points.

Also you can't be a federal employee and run for partisan public office. I guess politicians don't want people that actually know how their policies work competing with them.

Re:Why? (2)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639423)

Fairy Tales ... Like "We're from the government and we're here to help"?

Or "This High Speed Rail project will only cost 38 Billion"?

Or "Republicans want you to get pregnant, have cancer, and eat puppies"?

Or "Democrats want you to smoke pot, have gay sex and molest children"?

The problem is, lots of people want to believe in fairy tales, including people who claim they don't. People are not rational, including the ones that claim to be. Get over it.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639489)

Fairy Tales, aka sky daddies.

you don't *have* to be christian (in the public's eye) but it sure helps. a lot.

otoh, if you openly admit you don't believe in sky daddies and the like, you'll never get anywhere in american public office. (heck, even in business, its a show-stopper).

also, if you appear too intelligent, that's a major turn-off to the american voting public. it makes me ashamed of my own country, when I think of that, but we all know about the anti-intellectualism that is on the rise.

Re:Why? (1)

trout007 (975317) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639561)

It seems to me the anti-intellectual feelings only come about when a politician says since they are smarter than you they are going to force you to live like they want.

Take salt for example. Probably a good idea to limit the intake. But I don't want someone forcing businesses not to use it.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639575)

Yeah, i've seen that kind of thing, and I was avoiding it on purpose. Because, most people who pledge to never vote for a "Christian" or any other person of faith, will do exactly that come Nov. this year. Many of those will vote for Obama, and do so gladly because ... well Obama is their kind of person of faith.

I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

Me, I'm not a "Christian". I am a Libertarian, and I don't have a problem with people of faith (or lack their of) politically. My point, Atheists will mock religious people and how they vote, but then often vote for exactly the person they just mocked (like Obama). They compromise their own values in doing so.

Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?

Re:Why? (0)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639721)

>I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

What are the alternatives? Even Ron-let's-eat-children-Paul stands firmly behind banning abortions. On the state level, obviously. God forbid they are banned on the Federal level.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640071)

Scott Adams?

Re:Why? (1)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641143)

He's a creationist.

Re:Why? (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641667)

Scott Adams?

Perhaps you meant Douglas Adams, who died a few years ago.
Scott Adams, while witty enough in his Dilbert cartoons, is no substitute. Among other things, he believes in non-causal phenomena.

Now Dan Dennett [wikimedia.org] or Robert Sapolski [wikimedia.org] or Sam Harris [wikimedia.org] would likely be good presidential material, at least from the governance of people perspective (if you could arm-twist them into submitting to such an ordeal). Alas, they are far too rational to be acceptable to the electorate, especially if pitted against the usual rabid fruitcake who gets elected. Anyway, they'd probably have to lie unconscionably to pass the required stupidity tests called Primaries in the US.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640459)

Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?

That's because it really comes down to the lesser of the two evils. Their party won't win, so it is either Obama or, some religious nut sack that "prays to god" for all their answers.

Re:Why? (1)

Ksevio (865461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640489)

I'd love for their to be more atheist candidates, however, the religion of a candidate ranks pretty low on my list of qualifications.

Re:Why? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640891)

1- People can have faith and not be bigots. You don't seem to make a difference between an Obama christian and a Santorum christian ? Or, to stay on the supposedly same side of the spectrum, a Reagan christian and a Santorum christian ?

2- There's a wide gap between being an atheist, and insisting on a atheist president.

3- as a libertarian, which libertarian candidate will you vote for this coming election ? Or will you "compromise your values", too ? Or give up and not vote at all ?

4- I'm not sure libertarianism and atheism are quite on the same level. One is on an economical/social level, the other on a religious level. In my experience, religion works with all sorts of highly-specific mechanisms.

Re:Why? (2)

sFurbo (1361249) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641321)

I think you have gotten this the wrong way around. In USA, quite a large proportion of the voting public claims they will not vote for a candidate simply because the candidate is atheist (the number is significantly higher than the corresponding number for Muslims). I haven't seen any numbers for the proportion of voters who would never vote for a Christian, but I don't think anybody would claim that they are significant, given the proportion of the American public who are Christians. In general, atheists don't mock people for voting for a Christian, they despair at people who think religion is the most important parameter in who to vote for.

Re:Why? (3, Insightful)

Eraesr (1629799) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641517)

The problem in the US is that people can either vote for Obama or vote for the republican alternative. It has little to do with being an atheist and (hypocritically) voting for the Christian guy. It's mostly just a choice between the bad Christian guy or the worse Christian guy. So unless you really don't care (and abstain your vote altogether), you'll end up voting for the least bad guy just to prevent the worst guy from getting into office.

Here in the Netherlands, where I live, we have a great diversity of parties. Some of those have a strong religious background, others haven't got that at all. It doesn't always make it easier to get things done if a multitude of parties are involved, but at least there's a much broader choice for the voters.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641029)

Fairy Tales ... Like "We're from the government and we're here to help"?

Or "This High Speed Rail project will only cost 38 Billion"?

Or "Republicans want you to get pregnant, have cancer, and eat puppies"?

Or "Democrats want you to smoke pot, have gay sex and molest children"?

The problem is, lots of people want to believe in fairy tales, including people who claim they don't. People are not rational, including the ones that claim to be. Get over it.

Where's that -1 "Excessive candor" mod when you need it? Sheesh!

Re:Why? (2)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641305)

Requirement: A million dollars.
Disqualification: Openly admitting that you don't believe in fairy tales.

It'll likely cost more than a million dollars to successfully run for congress. In 2010, the average successful campaign for a house seat cost nearly 1.5 million. For the senate it was 9 million. ( data from: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/stats.php?display=A&type=W&cycle=2010 [opensecrets.org] )

Re:Why? (2)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641361)

Disqualification: Openly admitting you believe in Muslim fairy tales instead of Christian ones.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638643)

I agree. Having to wait until an election to get rid of a politician is ridiculous. The system is set up to exploit people's stupidity and forgetfulness. The politicians allegedly represent us, so we should have the power to fire them at any time, preferably in the middle of a hot-button issue like SOPA. A simple petition with X number of signatures would be a good way to do it.

Re:Why? (5, Informative)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638847)

Problem is: with whom do we replace them?

For every Congressman you could hypothetically shitcan at a moment's notice, there are a dozen more equally corrupt politicians at the state level ready to take their place. And for every Governor, Mayor etc that gets the axe (or gets promoted into a recently vacated congressional seat) there will always be a Secretary of State, greasy lawyer, corrupt CEO, Community Organizer, or some guy named Moonbeam.

The whole process is rotten to the core, and attracts like minded people into it's ranks. I see two possible outcomes, (1) some paradigm will shift and the process will slowly gravitate back towards honesty and intelligence with law-makers genuinely giving a crap about their constituents... or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get ... interesting.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638891)

Maybe if we could shitcan them on the spot, then the bad ones won't bother running.

Biggest reason they are corrupt as they are right now is that they have no reason to fear the voters. All they have to do is lie through their teeth during campaign season, then once they're safely in office and the only ones who can get rid of them are their fellow politicians, the wolves can safely take off their wool cloaks.

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638995)

one step forward would be: remove money from the equation.

SERIOUSLY police the income of the bastards. don't allow them to live any better than they were before taking public office. and the same for afterwards! I'm serious about this; the money IS the corruption.

I fully believe there are people who do good things because they believe its the 'right thing to do'. but those people never make it to office (for lots of reasons). and the ones who are in office are the sociopathic types (generally, its true, with few exceptions).

remove all profit motive and ensure that even after office, there won't be any funny business. yes, that's hard to implement and the details are hard. but I bet it would take the 'bad element' out of our government, our police, our courts and we'd be able to restore trust in our 'leaders' again.

"he was playin' real good. for free."

there's none of that left in public office. that's the problem. they are all in it for the power, money, influence. remove that motive and you filter out all the badies. and then things will improve.

Re:Why? (3, Interesting)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639043)

It's not just that the bad ones make it, it's that the good ones don't.

Those "reasons" have a lot to do with the corporate run media among others making sure not to let anyone in that would derail the gravy train.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639141)

its not money
its power.
money is just a physical representation of that.

Re:Why? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639143)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You are the ones asking for this. You bash ANY politician that dares cut the budget for any government agency and give passes to those who grow government without limit. This week we are hearing about what a crazy nut Paul Ryan is. His crime? Getting a budget passed through the House that has significant spending cuts. What a horrible man. Meanwhile most /. posters are excited about getting to vote for Obama who has deficit spent around $5 Trillion since taking office.

I just don't understand why you all are complaining when you get the people in office you beg for and they do EXACTLY what they said they will do.

Here is another hint. You probably meant get the money out of campaigns. That is nothing, its once they are in Congress/WH where the real money comes in. Obama has given $50 billion to solar companies owned by his supporters that are just shell companies to get the money. He has printed/borrowed $7.2 Trillion to give to his banker buddies. He got a nearly $1 Trillion to support his union buddies called the "stimilus". Know the amazing thing? He has you complaining about less than a billion that will be spent on the presidential race. As long as you keep supporting stuff like this there is NOTHING that can be done.

Re:Why? (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639343)

You probably meant get the money out of campaigns.

no, but I'd also like to get rid of campaigns as we know them. we have the internet now. the old ways are not working and we should try new ones. the old assumptions (that travel was slow, communication was slow and no effective way to 'poll the people' about issues) are all wrong, today. but we still have a so-called representative government that is not even close to being the voice of the people. not even close.

no, its not campain money, its ALL money that the politicians and other high public office holders end up with. one way or another, they enrichen themselves at high orders of magnitude. its just not right and its counter to what our country was setup to be.

whatever living style you had before office, you continue to have but not one penny more. and there would be watchers to ensure that some 'sunset' thing doesn't happen where you just get a delayed payout from some deed you did while in office.

yes, its hard to implement. but lots of things are hard; it does not mean we don't try them out.

dammit, anything is better than the direction we are headed in. small tweaks are not going to fix our problem.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640777)

tax political contributions above 100.00 at 99 percent.
80 year mandatory sentences for failure to report.

jr

Re:Why? (0)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640793)

If you don't like the campaigns, ignore the campaigns. It isn't difficult. Just don't listen to the fuckers.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640753)

I believe this is called "Campaign Finance Reform" and yes, it's a really good first step.

Re:Why? (1)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640847)

You know, now that I think about it ... that just might work. Maybe make it a 2/3 majority requirement. If any politician's approval rating gets below ~33%, and you get X number of petition signatures for their removal... hold a "special election" and kick em out

I think it answers GratefulNet's question too: Money

Any turd politician who can run a good campaign for a few months would show their true colors in office, get the boot, and be out the umpteen millions they spent on campaigning. Big business would think twice about who they bankroll knowing that all that funding could be for naught if they back a slimeball who won't last a full term. I would also imagine that it might be a tad difficult to get a job in the civilian sector with "kicked out of public office" on your CV.

Re:Why? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641231)

The answer is to get rid of FPPS voting, which ensures that two nearly equally corrupt parties bubble to the top. Just about any other voting system gives a better way to get rid of corruption.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640181)

Why replace them at all?

Say, if you get a no confidence vote for that position leave it vacant.

Then a vacant position is a automatic no vote on all new legislation, and a Pocket Veto over any bills applicable to the position.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640391)

Problem is: with whom do we replace them?

or some guy named Moonbeam.

He's called Terrence Moonseed.

Re:Why? (1)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640747)

I was actually referring to the current Governor of California.

Hint: It's not Ahnold anymore.

Re:Why? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640641)

Perhaps if the people have the option to issue fines when they throw the bums out. To make things fair, the fines may go up to the total amount they spent when running for office. They will be barred from holding any political office until they pay off the fine.

Re:Why? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640657)

The whole process is rotten to the core,

You mean the "whole process" whereby we actually have a say in who our leaders are?

As opposed to what alternative process? The one where we have a benevolent dictator for life?

Re:Why? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640731)

Why must they be replaced? "Having nobody in office is better than having YOU in office" is a powerful message. And honestly, shit is NOT going to fall to pieces just because we don't have the requisite meddling douche in office for a couple months. Grow a spine. You don't need these people that badly.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640749)

No One.

I vote for abstinence.

It would do less damage.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641089)

Problem is: with whom do we replace them?

An excellent question.

For every Congressman you could hypothetically shitcan at a moment's notice, there are a dozen more equally corrupt politicians at the state level ready to take their place. And for every Governor, Mayor etc that gets the axe (or gets promoted into a recently vacated congressional seat) there will always be a Secretary of State, greasy lawyer, corrupt CEO, Community Organizer, or some guy named Moonbeam.

That is, for the most part, true. And that's sad.

The whole process is rotten to the core, and attracts like minded people into it's ranks.

You're preaching to the choir, my friend.

I see two possible outcomes, (1) some paradigm will shift and the process will slowly gravitate back towards honesty and intelligence with law-makers genuinely giving a crap about their constituents...

That "paradigm shift" you mention must needs come of taking the money out of politics. As long as the filthy lucre is abundant in our political system, we will attract mostly the greedy, selfish megalomaniacs. Unfortunately, since that shift has to come from those self-same greedy, selfish megalomaniacs who are the primary beneficiaries of our rotten system, good luck with that.

or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get ... interesting.

And we have a winner! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638943)

to take the devil's advocate/opposite view: if you can kick someone out of office instantly (or nearly) then won't they all be just living for the short term and never long? isn't this even worse than what we have now?

companies are evil, like that. investors often are, too. they want short term this and short term that. very reactive but not long-thinking.

what we have now is totally broken. but your proposal won't work, either.

I'm not sure the current structure is at all correct. rather than making small tweaks, it seems to me we need huge changes. as huge as going from linked linear lists to 2d or 3d trees.

tiered review and rotating officials with some feedback system might be nice to try. lots of watchers watching the watchers. self policing system that ensures stability (think: negative feedback amplifiers, to use a tech analogy).

there is no way the current system self-fixes. no self policing and power goes unchecked. truly, the people and their good is not being looked after. I think a lot of people agree that our system needs an overhaul, not a tune-up.

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639111)

How about we over a simple corruption vote, such that the populace votes, and if more than 2/3 support it, the politician is not only removed from office, but their assets are forfeit, and they are incarcerated as a felon (the vote being a substitute for a trial). The forfeit assets would at least partially offset the costs of imprisoning the politician.

The idea being that politicians could literally lose their reputation, their money, their vote (in most states), their 2nd amendment rights (in most states), and perhaps even their home if the public finds them guilty of corruption.

That sounds like it would motivate politicians to think of the people. The super-majority requirement would protect politicians who were merely doing the right thing despite it being unpopular, as getting a super-majority to agree on anything in politics as extraordinarily difficult.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639235)

Because that's just mob rule, and a generally bad idea. No due process, either? No thanks. Think of something else.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641125)

How about we over a simple corruption vote, such that the populace votes, and if more than 2/3 support it, the politician is not only removed from office, but their assets are forfeit, and they are incarcerated as a felon (the vote being a substitute for a trial). The forfeit assets would at least partially offset the costs of imprisoning the politician.

The idea being that politicians could literally lose their reputation, their money, their vote (in most states), their 2nd amendment rights (in most states), and perhaps even their home if the public finds them guilty of corruption.

That sounds like it would motivate politicians to think of the people. The super-majority requirement would protect politicians who were merely doing the right thing despite it being unpopular, as getting a super-majority to agree on anything in politics as extraordinarily difficult.

What you're missing here is that the most corrupt stuff that goes on is, in fact, legal. That doesn't make it any less corrupt. And since the folks who benefit the most are the ones who write the laws...well, you do that math.

Re:Why? (4, Interesting)

pwizard2 (920421) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639131)

to take the devil's advocate/opposite view: if you can kick someone out of office instantly (or nearly) then won't they all be just living for the short term and never long? isn't this even worse than what we have now?

Lots of politicians are already taking bribes and thinking in the short term. (that's why stuff like this happens) They are also stashing away favors and other goodies for the long term to ensure that someone will give them a job on some company board in the future. Like others said, they only pretend to care about us during election time. Immediately after that, we are effectively powerless again until the next election. If I call or write my grievances to a politician, they will just give me a politely worded "fuck you" response if I even get one at all.

If you fuck up badly enough on your job, you will probably get fired on the spot. If you fuck up enough times, you will eventually get fired. If you steal from your job or use company resources for your own gain, you will probably get fired if caught. Politicians steal from us all the time and we have no way to stop them. They fuck up all the time or even actively work against us and their incompetence and greed makes everyone suffer. Politicians don't have to live with that fear and they can do a lot more damage to society than practically everyone else. Not having a fail-safe system in place to remove them if they step out of line is absolutely insane. Getting one warning before being sacked is more than generous for those in public office. Finding a temporary replacement to serve out the remainder of the term is fairly simple.

.... Democracy (1)

dpqb (2608183) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639207)

I find tyranny a bit harder to swallow when it's "for the People"

Re:.... Democracy (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639483)

Problem with Democracy is that it leads to mob rule and tyranny of the majority; two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

The whole point of a Republic is to have statesmen (not politicians) make decisions for their constituents (people), but under the limitations of the governance system they are placed. Right now, the Constitution means whatever people want it to mean, which allows slimy politicians to create and keep resubmitting laws over and over again until they get one passed, and usually it is worse one of all that does.

But enough people want something, no matter how bad it is for everyone, that eventually there is no restriction and it becomes law. Tyranny of restraint-less governance.

Re:Why? (1)

obarthelemy (160321) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640905)

Yep. Politicians are not sufficiently enthralled to corporations by having to fund expensive campaigns every few years. Let's make them have to fund a permanent campaign, that way they'll be.. less enthralled ?

Re:Why? (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639685)

I know. It's like having an army of demons dedicated to making your life hell; they get up every day, review the previous day's minutes, then ask themselves how they can top it.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639919)

I believe that's why the founder's included this little thing called the Second Amendment. In the quadriviuk of soap box, ballot box, jury box, cartridge box, we're about down to the last one as our only relevant option.

Re:Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39641617)

Use your second amendment for what it was intended and go shoot them.
Yes, I would prefer the power of the people to expel and dismiss congressman, but that's not going to happen in your lifetime. What can happen is shooting them.

its bad (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638461)

CISPA is bad... mkay

Most bills are bad (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638497)

Most laws are designed to increase the power of the federal government and reduce the honest citizens rights.

Laws don't apply to the criminals.

List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (5, Informative)

suraj.sun (1348507) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638557)

http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-2011 [house.gov]

AT&T
Boeing
BSA
Business Roundtable
CSC
COMPTEL
CTIA - The Wireless Association
Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association
Edison Electric
EMC
Exelon
Facebook
The Financial Services Roundtable
IBM
Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
Information Technology Industry Council
Intel
Internet Security Alliance
Lockheed Martin
Microsoft
National Cable & Telecommunications Association
NDIA
Oracle
Symantec
TechAmerica
US Chamber of Commerce
US Telecom - The Broadband Association
Verizon

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (2)

lgw (121541) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638743)

Wow, there are several tech companies in there. Seems like they didn't hear it the last time we got upset about suppporting this kind of crap. Of course, their support may pre-date this rider, and they just don't realize yet what they're now suporting. Seems like the /. hordes might remedy that.

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (3, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638889)

I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.

go figure!

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (1)

tqk (413719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639605)

I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.

IBM, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Oracle?

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640241)

What company do you respect then? I respect a lot of those companies on that list, even if I don't like them. I respect IBM, but it's a cool, remorseless respect. I used to smirk at Microsoft, but I've lately grown to respect them for their responsiveness to business needs. I respect Intel for their relentless pushing forward of manufacturing technology, their attention to quality, and their surprisingly good marketing department.

On the other hand, I have nothing but disgust for Symantec. Once a great company, now a leach without even a good product.

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (4, Informative)

IonOtter (629215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639221)

That list is very, very short.

Compare it to the list of interests that supported SOPA. [opencongress.org]

Found only two matches: National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the US Chamber of Commerce. There were a few matches on the opposing side, but not many.

Now we know who the real players are in the game of controlling the government.

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639287)

Or the bad guys dropped off the list publicly in hopes it doesnt get as much bad PR

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (1)

Trilkin (2042026) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638813)

Facebook supporting CISPA seems like a conflict of interest here.

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639101)

Really? Pretty sure they already share all information to government agencies under the table.

Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA (2)

Trilkin (2042026) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639399)

Not even under the table, but I was thinking more about the scrutiny on Facebook as an organization itself and what exactly Zuckerberg is doing with all of the information his company harvests.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639377)

Those are just a list of companies that support Big Brother. AT&T illegal wiretaps, along with the other cellular companies. IBM's DOD support, along with the typical main defense contractors that control the US political agenda. These older corporations are near death, innovation-wise, but have a political foothold which they are attempting to maintain, to the point where it is unclear whether they control the government or the government controls them. Members of the list that are not present (but should be) include Google, GE, General Dynamics, Yahoo.... etc.

Brute Force (1)

jxander (2605655) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638625)

Feels like the gvmnt is trying to Brute Force these laws through.

SOPA ... PIPA ... ACTA ... COICA... and a bunch of other bills that haven't been officially introduced yet... H.R. 1981, S.978

Eventually one will slip through and become law.

Re:Brute Force (1)

koan (80826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638979)

"Eventually one will slip through and become law"

How do you motivate the obese, bewildered masses that only want their iPhones and snacks? Seriously I don't respect the general populace of this country any longer (if I ever did) they get what they deserve.
Consumer cattle led to slaughter.

Idiocracy was a documentary.

Re:Brute Force (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639755)

Problem is we are forced to live around them and participate in the same system, which is depressing in an, "I don't want to live on this planet anymore." way. Except none of us have a delivery company with a science mobile to get the hell out of here.

Vague FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638635)

So, let's rope everything from anti-terrorism efforts to copyright infringement into the same, vaguely-defined bill, and then we can selectively prosecute whatever we want? Wonderful.

Round two (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638831)

In my view the real power of SOPA was protection for those choosing to act in "good faith" as judge jury and executioner without the possibilty of civil recourse when this is abused.

No ISP is going to implement MPAA's wet dream if they know they will be successfully sued into oblivian the second it is switched on.

This is the same thing all over again.

Only the choice of words is different to appeal to the "security" boogyman this time around.

Re:Round two (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639113)

It might fail the second time around, but it will pass when they use the "pedophilia" bogeyman the next time around.

The FBI just replaced Bin Laden as the most wanted criminal on their list with a pedo who apparently diddled one kiddie. No murder, no explosives, no mass embezzlement. Number one wanted criminal in the world. Prepare to be labeled a pedophile when you reject their subsequent attempt at this line of legislation.

-- Ethanol-fueled

The end of global internet? (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638911)

Or at least global social networks/mail providers/etc. What happens when (if?) other countries with some minimal respect for their citizens privacy (i.e. EU) put laws that forces companies to protect their citizens privacy?

I love they way these people think. (5, Insightful)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638913)

It's like somewhere a bunch of congressmen and lobbyists got other and said:

"Wow, the internet has really been a force for global change. It empowers people to coordinate with each other and share information in a way never before possible. What can be do to put a stop to it?"

Re:I love they way these people think. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640365)

This won't stop the internet. Most people won't even notice a difference.

No fighting back? Bad sign (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 2 years ago | (#39638921)

The corporate and government sectors are BOTH corrupt as hell.

Enough so that whenever they actually manage to agree on something, it's probably something bad for us small folks.

Rather how ex wives never like each other unless they both hate the husband.

4chan is the target (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39638929)

This is how they legalize putting full time supervision on 4chan.

There's always a risk of nefarious plotting when you let people converse freely.

Sony (2)

Smiddi (1241326) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639161)

This comes at the same time Sony announces a $6.4 billion loss. Im sure they will blame music piracy, yet Apple is making those same billions in profit during a GFC. Can anyone see that one business model is overtaking the other? - Sony obviously cant, and have missed the bus too.

Much ado about nothing (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639367)

After going to thomas.loc.gov and reading the text of the proposed law, it seems that it really is pretty harmless.'

Once you get past the scary definitions, what you have is a law that requires the government and "cybersecurity providers" to not make public any otherwise confidential material relevant to a security breach.

Plus it allows the government to share information it may have about "cybersecurity threats" with outsiders.

The only really interesting bit in the whole thing is that it uses "entity" a lot, and specifically defines it as NOT including "an individual".

Re:Much ado about nothing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639533)

After going to thomas.loc.gov and reading the text of the proposed law, it seems that it really is pretty harmless.'

Once you get past the scary definitions, what you have is a law that requires the government and "cybersecurity providers" to not make public any otherwise confidential material relevant to a security breach.

Plus it allows the government to share information it may have about "cybersecurity threats" with outsiders.

The only really interesting bit in the whole thing is that it uses "entity" a lot, and specifically defines it as NOT including "an individual".

I'm not sure "pretty harmless" is the way I would describe "not make public any otherwise confidential material relevant to a security breach".
To me, that sounds like security through obscurity prescribed by law.
Or, in layman's terms, it would become illegal to point out that the security emperor has no clothes.

what the hell is going on?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639393)

sOPA/PIPA failed because of the overwhelming outrage.

now they're trying to do it again, WORSE, with the help of corporations who will specifically benefit.

how is this not corrupt?

For once, the extreme right is extremely right (1)

e9th (652576) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639437)

Even "paleoconservative" Alex Jones [wikipedia.org] is firing up his followers against government internet surveillance legislation in the works. Here's an example [infowars.com] from one of his sites that even made the Drudge Report last Saturday.

Score: -1, Corrupted (1)

Dutchmaan (442553) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639497)

If only congressmen had moderators...

the bill is being pushed (1)

nimbius (983462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639539)

to address multiple issues, not the least of which is transgression against your freedom. while the arab spring fallout from wikileaks was an excellent goose for american foreign policy, the occupy movement has left a rank taste in the mouths of billionaires and the government has thus far run out of productive things to do with Bradley Manning, nude or clothed.

dont think of it as trampling your rights, think of it as pepperspray-prevention.

the corps run the goverment (1)

laserdog (2500192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639549)

someone needs to stop them before the batter witch runs us all if the corps starting running the gov then the dream of haveing a world exactly like star trek will never come true

You all dont get it, this is the best bill ever. (2)

Harkin (1951724) | more than 2 years ago | (#39639787)

This bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to include "(1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information" as "cyber threat intelligence". This is important because amending the National Security Act makes "cyber threat intelligence" a product of the intelligence community. This is important because US persons have protections under Title 50 when included within intelligence products.

Basically it would make it unlawful to collect these products against a US person without a very serious warrant. Now say AT&T decides to cooperate with the government in this bill, they would become a "certified entities" and thus as a collection partner and would be subject to restrictions. IE it would be pretty impossible for say the RIAA to subpoena the intelligence that in reality can't even be collected without a warrant and even if it was and was done with a warrant it would have to be the AG acting on it. Basically, it turns your info into intelligence which makes it a very protected thing.

In reality this bill might make it significantly harder to monitor your communications and provide much larger penalties for doing so without a sufficient warrant. Basically it would make it unlawful to collect these products against a US person without a very serious warrant. Now say AT&T decides to cooperate with the government in this bill, they would become a "certified entities" and thus as a collection partner and would be subject to restrictions. IE it would be pretty impossible for say the RIAA to subpoena the intelligence that in reality can't even be collected without a warrant and even if it was and was done with a warrant it would have to be the AG acting on it. Basically, it turns your info into intelligence which makes it a very protected thing.

In reality this bill might make it significantly harder to monitor your communications and provide much larger penalties for doing so without a sufficient warrant.

------
I am not a lawyer, I am not your lawyer, I might be a pound of chease.

wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640081)

Collection of data is neither theft or misappropriation. In addition, IP addresses are currently considered not personally identifiable so RIAA can still collect the data.

Ok. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39639891)

Every single comment I post here lately has been labeled "Troll". Being a foreigner, I really should pack my things and start learning Japanese or German or even something more common -- like returning to French.

But alas, can't really see people with eyes blindfolded near big holes on the ground, despairing because they hear thunder approaching.

a) Change your system: it's not working. Counting elections by state winners only change democracy into a negotiation table. Happy the small state that can turn the tide (or not).
b) Instead of voting for a candidate, use a turn-based system to crop the ones nobody wants: vote for rejection and you'll end up with 2 average candidates everybody could accept (over here, Brazil, we have two turns).
c) Use the source: think why open source adapts to fast change, the advantages of meritocracy and dealing with constant negotiation -- then step up to free source. Freedom and transparency is what your founding fathers died for... it's not just an obligation to them -- think why someone would use such values after a war against tyranny. Do you think there's tyranny now?
d) The President needs help, it's too much to think he can go against the bad guys in society. He needs a stronger body to help him decide, so that influencing him doesn't pay off. Sorry, but not everyone can be Lincoln. And he was protected by his Army -- and even so someone managed to kill him.
e) Create a pro-Citizen climate. The way things are now corporations rule, but a stronger People representation would veto absurd projects like this one and return distributors to sound capitalism. How did that work in other countries. But if famine comes to be, remember to distribute bread, mmkay? Absolutely not any kind of cake...

If all comes to worse, let me say this: however dumb we think you are, we are neighbours. Just don't flood the condo and we'll be happy to help citizens, as we did in the past.

Self-correcting bill? (2)

yotto (590067) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640027)

So if this bill is passed, won't it, "degrade, disrupt, or destroy" the Internet? Won't it therefore become illegal?

Re:Self-correcting bill? (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640439)

So if this bill is passed, won't it, "degrade, disrupt, or destroy" the Internet? Won't it therefore become illegal?

Is it illegal for a policeman to shut someone? Sometimes it doesn't.

Is it illegal someone to shut the sheriff (even if not shooting the deputy)? Always.

Re:Self-correcting bill? (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640773)

Is it illegal someone to shut the sheriff ? Always.

No. Shutting the sheriff is not illegal. Slamming it might be, though, and the jury is out about locking him.

Summary is misleading. (1)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640393)

The official summary says this pertains to the protection of government intelligence information and the measures that are necessary to protect it. This is not about protecting movies from file sharers. The intelligence community is not thinking about movies. They're thinking about espionage.

Re:Summary is misleading. (3, Insightful)

TedHornsby (1791978) | more than 2 years ago | (#39640859)

Then why the references to "intellectual property" in the bill?

Re:Summary is misleading. (1)

caladine (1290184) | more than 2 years ago | (#39641179)

My guess would be that the bill also focuses on corporate espionage. Namely the wholesale theft of technology and the like by Chinese and Russian interests.

So much hyperbole (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39640993)

So much talk for nothing. Check out the "Subject areas" on the Bill Overview. This is the context of that bill. Point your finger at the person(s) mixing the contexts, not the bill itself. I can understand why the content of the bill is so vague. It is because technology is changing all the time, they are lazy to change the text every week/month and need to describe generic moral/ethical rules to follow.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?