Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

CISPA Bill Obliterates Privacy Laws With Blank Check of Privacy Invasion

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the also-it-sounds-sinister dept.

Government 192

MojoKid writes "At present, the government's ability to share data on its citizens is fairly restricted, insomuch as the various agencies must demonstrate cause and need. This has created a somewhat byzantine network of guidelines and laws that must be followed — a morass of red tape that CISPA is intended to cut through. One of the bill's key passages is a provision that gives private companies the right to share cybersecurity data with each other and with the government 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' The problem with this sort of blank check clause is that, even if the people who write the law have only good intentions, it provides substantial legal cover to others who might not. Further, the core problem with most of the proposed amendments to the bill thus far isn't that they don't provide necessary protections, it's that they seek to bind the length of time the government can keep the data it gathers, or the sorts of people it can't collect data on, rather than protecting citizens as a whole. One proposed amendment, for example, would make it illegal to monitor protesters — but not other groups. It's not hard to see how those seeking to abuse the law could find a workaround — a 'protester' is just a quick arrest away from being considered a 'possible criminal risk.'"

cancel ×

192 comments

Home of the free and the land of the brave? (5, Insightful)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812173)

How does surrendering our freedom out of fear match up with our motto?

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812277)

Because we won World War II and saved the asses of the your-a-peeins!!! Also, our economy is better and people just hate us for our freedoms!

Yes, this is parody.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (3, Funny)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812385)

Bricka bracka firecracker CIS-boom-PA!

Creeping fascism! Creeping fascism! RAH RAH RAH!

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812537)

Bricka bracka firecracker CIS-boom-PA!

Creeping fascism! Creeping fascism! RAH RAH RAH!

Aww...man.....don't do that to childhood Bugs Bunny memories.

That stuff is kinda sacred.....like remembering when the USA was a freedom oriented country.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (0)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813301)

You call it parody, I call it Fox News.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (3, Insightful)

Brian Feldman (350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812301)

Bravery and freedom changed meanings. Now they mean bravery to commit acts of violence and freedom to attempt to control the world. Who needs personal liberty when individuals are only interested in games and trivialities -- sports, music, TV, movies, politics, books, parties?

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813311)

Bravery and freedom changed meanings. Now they mean bravery to commit acts of violence and freedom to attempt to control the world. Who needs personal liberty when individuals are only interested in games and trivialities -- sports, music, TV, movies, politics, books, parties?

Huh. I always thought that "Home of the Brave" referred to Native American warriors.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812405)

Just tell yourself it's all temporary measures necessary to defeat the evil $EXTERNAL_ENEMY. As soon as the $EXTERNAL_ENEMY are defeated everyone can have their freedom back. Unless, of course, a new threat is constructed, in which case everything will be back to normal right after that threat too is neutralized.
Don't worry about it, citizen. If you insist on thinking about such things your friendly government will give you a free vacation in a beautiful Caribbean island.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (4, Informative)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812903)

Don't worry. They've already found an $INTERNAL_ENEMY - patriot groups, militia groups, returning vets, in short almost anybody who disagrees with the government.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (1)

Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812441)

Piracy, privacy, who cares what gets obliterated as long as it's done efficiently...

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812503)

If we don't keep people terrified then we will let our guard down, and the terrorists will win. Lets cut spending on food inspection and education, since we all know we are unable to cut any defense spending. Defense contractors have ran the US since WWII, so we understand it would be wrong to limit their money that currently supports the economy, especially during a recession. Instead we just need to find a decent country to fight: China with media, Iran with covert, Venezuela with media/covert, Cuba with media, Pakistan with covert, US with media, etc... With enough privately funded defense sub-contractors, working outside of government oversight, anything can be accomplished.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (3, Interesting)

Presto Vivace (882157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812595)

We are like Argentina during the dirty war.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812637)

Home of the free and the land of the brave?

Get. It. Fucking. Right.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (1)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813605)

Wondered how long it woud take for someone to get pedantic. Took me moments after clicking submit, but the words are interchangeable in that context anyway, so I stand by it.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (0, Troll)

SlashRAH (1236462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812699)

Technically, the motto is "In God We Trust". Don't worry, Obama forgot too :-)

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812961)

Actually, Obama is threatening a veto on this.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (3, Insightful)

Thing 1 (178996) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813099)

Exactly! Just like he threatened a veto on NDAA, and said he would close Gitmo.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (3, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813045)

Technically, the motto is "In God We Trust". Don't worry, Obama forgot too :-)

No, it's not; the actual national motto is

E
Pluribus
Unum

"Out of many, One."

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813293)

How does surrendering our freedom out of fear match up with our motto?

It doesn't, and it's not our "motto", but you could at least get it right:

The Land of free and the home of the brave.

Despair is starting to set in (4, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812181)

The pace is accelerating.

We need some kind of Tracking-Data-Armageddon security breach to make the common citizens wake up and realize that we're all just going to stare at each other in a dystopian fishbowl forever while everything just becomes more unfair.

(Satire)
That's all I can type now because I used up my monthly ascii character quota on two tweets of data for $99.95.
(/Satire)

Re:Despair is starting to set in (-1, Troll)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812583)

Just re-elect Obama for 4 more years, or Romney to replace him, and we'll head down that path where Americans are getting round-up and thrown in jail. The sooner we reach tyranny, the sooner we can impeach the joker, and restore the Bill of Rights.

Re:Despair is starting to set in (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812985)

You realize Obama is threatening to veto this, because we are all being so noisy about it? The guy is actually listening.

Re:Despair is starting to set in (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39813043)

It is in his best interests to do so. It is an election year after all.

Re:Despair is starting to set in (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39813203)

You realize Obama is threatening to veto this, because we are all being so noisy about it? The guy is actually listening.

[citation needed]

Re:Despair is starting to set in (2, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813371)

[citation provided] [go.com] , asshole.

Re:Despair is starting to set in (2)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813333)

You realize Obama is threatening to veto this, because we are all being so noisy about it? The guy is actually listening.

Better make sure it gets passed now, then, while he's still in campaign mode, because he's sure to sign it after the election when he's back to let 'em eat cake mode.

Re:Despair is starting to set in (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813187)

Just re-elect Obama for 4 more years, or Romney to replace him, and we'll head down that path where Americans are getting round-up and thrown in jail. The sooner we reach tyranny, the sooner we can impeach the joker, and restore the Bill of Rights.

Bad news, bruddah - only Congress has the power to impeach the President, and considering that they are just-as-if-not-more corrupt than the leader of the Executive... we're pretty much fucked on that avenue.

Re:Despair is starting to set in (2)

englishknnigits (1568303) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813365)

Not to mention you have to have a crime to charge him with, then impeach him, then convict him (which actually gets him out of office). And then we would have Biden...

Re:Despair is starting to set in (3, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813447)

Not to mention you have to have a crime to charge him with, then impeach him, then convict him (which actually gets him out of office). And then we would have Biden...

I felt the same way during the last administration when people started talking about impeaching Bush - I'm no fan, but I'll take Jar Jar Binks over Emperor Palpatine any day of the week.

Re:Despair is starting to set in (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813515)

Gather 40 or 50 million people outside Congress / the White House with torches and pitchforks, and we will test that theory.

Re:Despair is starting to set in (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813481)

Or we could take the insecure, paranoid, governmental, controlling types out back, and put two bullets in their heads. Problem solved.

I'm not advocating a violent solution here, but it does appear that said people are providing the 'aggression' that most political types speak of in a 'Just War,' and have already violated enough of their own laws not to be taken seriously when they say 'this new law will be limited to {various groups and peoples you do not like}.'

Abusing the law (2)

Imrik (148191) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812227)

I see this phrase every time this sort of bill comes up where they claim that one group or another won't abuse the law. After some thought, I decided I agreed with their assessment. All this means is that the law is originally intended to be used in that way, if it's the intent of the law, it isn't abuse to use it that way.

Resisting Arrest (2, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812229)

It actually happens from time to time (at least in Massachusetts, USA) that a person is charged with one and only one crime, to wit: resisting arrest. I actually know a person to whom this actually happened and he was found guilty. So at least in Massachusetts, they can simply arrest you for resisting arrest. You don't need to commit any actual crime.

Re:Resisting Arrest (2, Informative)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812299)

Solution: Don't resist arrest. Even if the cop is full of shit, cooperate with him by letting him place handcuffs on you. And then sue him for thousands later. (You don't have to win; you just have to inconvenience the cop as badly as he inconvenienced you.)

1. Become lawyer
2. Visit prisons every day
3. Profit$

With ages of abuse comes wisdom (5, Interesting)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812605)

Unfortunately I speak from experience. I have been in the right, and stuck up for my rights many times. ... and no, I'm not stupid, but you can bet your ass I am stubborn as hell and outraged that the cops constantly piss on the graves of so many men who valiantly fought for the freedoms they spit on daily.

It hasn't worked out well even once. What you are proposing doesn't work in the real world. On TV the cops are very careful about following the rules. In reality they believe that the rules are there to use when it is convenient, and ignore when it is not. In the situation you just described the absolute best * that you can hope for is going to court several times over the course of several months followed by a jury trial with a not guilty, at which point a lawyer will tell you with a straight face that - in the eyes of the law - even though you are presumed innocent until and unless convicted, the fact that you were found not guilty does not mean that the court has found you innocent. The charge will appear on your record when an employer runs a background check (in most if not all states.) The person doing the hiring will assume that you were guilty and they just didn't prove it, or at the very least that you must have done something wrong to be arrested.

* There is an extremely slight chance the case will be dropped, but that almost never happens even when the police report contradicts other provable facts. In one case I had, the DA actually told the cop that what he wrote made it clear I was not guilty, at which point the cop was allowed to file an amended report with the additional lies needed to tie it all up (The car was stuck in a snowbank in the driveway (True) was changed to the car was stuck halfway in the driveway and half way in the street [The lie they needed (TM).]

Re:With ages of abuse comes wisdom (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813531)

Bring a video camera next time, and a friend.

Re:Resisting Arrest (2)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813191)

Solution: Don't resist arrest

Yeah, but this does nothing about the all-too-common practice cops have of charging someone with resisting arrest because they don't have anything else to charge them with, rather than because they actually resisted arrest.

Re:Resisting Arrest (2)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813545)

Hmm. Is it possible to be charged with 'resisting arrest' without another charge to justify arresting said person?

Re:Resisting Arrest (3, Insightful)

superdave80 (1226592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812331)

I'm not sure I see the issue here. An officer can arrest you if he has good cause to (you match the description of a suspect in the area, etc.). This is the original reason you are being arrested. It may later be determined that you didn't commit a crime, and then no charges are filed.

If, however, you resist this arrest, you are then charged with resisting arrest. Simply because you think you didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you just cause to resist the arresting officer.

You don't need to commit any actual crime.

You consider resisting arrest not an 'actual crime'? Are you saying that officers don't have the authority to arrest people?

Re:Resisting Arrest (5, Interesting)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812453)

Are you saying that officers don't have the authority to arrest people?

Officers have authority to arrest people ONLY IF:
- the officer has seen you commit an offence;
- someone charges you with having committed an offence and gives an undertaking to prosecute the charge;
- the officer finds you disturbing the peace;
- she/he reasonably suspects you have committed or are about to commit an offence or breach of the peace.

The law also states that you must be told in simple language WHY YOU ARE BEING ARRESTED. Simply having the thug in blue announce "that's it, you're under arrest" is not valid.

This is lost on most of the right-wing assholes who worship the thugs-in-blue, however.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1, Insightful)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812635)

Dude, you have some serious misapprehensions about the right wing. Supporting law enforcement doesn't mean supporting lawbreaking by police or other government agents.

Re:Resisting Arrest (4, Interesting)

JohnFen (1641097) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813221)

Dude, you have some serious misapprehensions about the right wing. Supporting law enforcement doesn't mean supporting lawbreaking by police or other government agents.

In theory, but in practice it does seem to mean exactly that. I wouldn't say that it's unique to conservatives, but to authoritarians. Authoritarians are more likely to be conservatives than liberals, though.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812639)

+1 How come I never have mod points when there is something worthy of modding up?

Re:Resisting Arrest (3, Insightful)

RenderSeven (938535) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812705)

This is lost on most of the right-wing assholes who worship the thugs-in-blue, however.

I dont know any right-wing assholes that worship the thugs in blue, and Im a right wing asshole. Seriously, why does this always end up being a left/right issue? Maybe left-wing assholes think its OK to abuse right-wing assholes and vice versa, but I'd hazard to say "this is lost on people whose party affiliation is more important than their objectivity' which seems to be just about everyone these days. I was 100% with you until that last sentence sand-bagged any credibility you built up to that point.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812687)

Er. Ahh. No. He can't arrest you because he thinks you match someones identity. He can detain you. If a cop has no legal reason to arrest you then you should not be charged with resisting arrest. Period.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812719)

"Disrupting the peace" is the usual thing the cops hit you with when they can't think of anything else. You may be completely innocent but they'll hit you with that so they can jail or fine you.

Like when they drug Professor Gates off to jail because he (rightly) was angry at being forced to let cops inside his house in violation of his 4th amendment rights. The professor should have sued the cop and the station, and turned it into a national event to emabrass police everywhere. But no. Instead he caved.

Btw do you think the mentally-retarded woman deserved to be beat by cops 3 months ago?
Or that the man who recorded with his phone deserved to be drug to jail?
You probably do.

Re:Resisting Arrest (3, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813003)

"Simply because you think you didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you just cause to resist the arresting officer."

Yes, it does. That is what a court is for.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

Re:Resisting Arrest (4, Informative)

Khyber (864651) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813023)

Oops, slashdot ate part of my comment.

To add to that: “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

Re:Resisting Arrest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39813167)

You consider resisting arrest not an 'actual crime'? Are you saying that officers don't have the authority to arrest people?

Apply the principle of universality to it. If it was anyone other than a cop who was doing the arresting, what is the victim doing wrong by trying to resist his attacker? When mistakes are made in the real world, there are consequences. When a cop is just "doing his job" then the responsibility should be the same as for anyone else doing the attacking.

Charges come after a prosecutor decides (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812343)

It may be the prosecutor did not find sufficient evidence present to convince a jury. So the police are protecting themselves by throwing in the resisting arrest claim. That way they cannot be sued for wrongful arrest.
Just a theory.

Re:Resisting Arrest (2)

Moryath (553296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812351)

It's a cyclical joke at that point. And one of the things the thugs in blue count on. "Resisting arrest" and "disobeying a lawful order" - you can be given an UNlawful order, arrested for "disobeying" it, have "resisting arrest" thrown on for spite.

Even if you prove the order was UNlawful, they can try to make the "resisting arrest" stand with any number of corrupt judges who are more than willing to set unreasonably high bail, endorse witness tampering under color of law (e.g. witness tampering BY the prosecutors and cops), and just generally harass you till you cave in and plea bargain.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812701)

Finally ... someone else with a clue about how it really works. I hope you didn't have to find out the hard way as I did ;-)

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812451)

Here's a theory: one can be arrested for a fair number of reasons (such as they have reasonable grounds for suspecting one has committed certain offences). Resisting that arrest is also illegal. So once the person has been arrested, and further investigation has occurred, it may have been determined that the person did not in fact commit the offence (or insufficient evidence, whatever). As a result, there is no charge regarding the original reason why the person was arrested. However, resisting the legal arrest is itself illegal, and there may have been sufficient evidence to show that the "resist arrest" occurred so charges were laid for _that_ offence (and apparently subsequently found guilty).

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812723)

So once the person has been arrested, and further investigation has occurred, it may have been determined that the person did not in fact commit the offence (or insufficient evidence, whatever).

I am pretty sure they are talking about arresting people without reasonable grounds and then charging them for resisting arrest. If a cop cannot even give me a reason why he is arresting me, he has no business arresting me and I definitely have no inclination to cooperate.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813111)

Yes, you do. Because if you do not, you just handed them a legitimate charge to use.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813159)

That's an assumption that the police didn't have reasonable grounds. All the OP talked about was that it happens that "a person is charged with one and only one crime, to wit: resisting arrest". Nothing about what preceeded that.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812743)

I agree with everything you wrote except you are missing one point. The correct and just thing to do to someone when you arrest the wrong person is to apologize to them, not try to find a way to make their life miserable.

Re:Resisting Arrest (1)

Imagix (695350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813127)

Can't say whether the apology is necessary or not as no details about the resisting arrest were not given.

We vowed not to repeat past mistakes (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812239)

To not arrest people and throw them in jail for merely speaking (Sedition Acts) or suspected terrorists (round-up of asian-Americans). We said it would never happen again, and yet we are going down that same path (indefinite detainment for mere suspicion).

Re:We vowed not to repeat past mistakes (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812265)

Finally. I got sick of living on this planet anyway.

Blank Check? (1)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812285)

More like blank checkbook with every check autographed and when you run out of checks they automatically mail you more signed checks.

'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'

If that's an actual quote from the bill, what the fuck? I mean, aren't laws repealed and modified by further legislation and "provisions of law"? "And this law says you can't ever change this law" sounds like something a two year old would propose ... am I incorrect in assuming that with that sort of clause this bill basically ensures that once it is passed it can never be revoked by another bill or law?

Re:Blank Check? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812381)

That's not what the clause means. It is a clause stating it overwrites any other existing provision that might disallow what it is now allowing.

Re:Blank Check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812403)

That's not what the clause means. It is a clause stating it overwrites any other existing provision that might disallow what it is now allowing.

And if this is passed, how would you propose modifying that clause if we wanted to after it gets the shit abused out of it? Perhaps with further provisions of law?

Re:Blank Check? (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812481)

Congress supercedes it with another law or repeals it. Was that really so hard? That clause is pretty standard legalese in bills.

Re:Blank Check? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812507)

And if this is passed, how would you propose modifying that clause if we wanted to after it gets the shit abused out of it? Perhaps with further provisions of law?

Actually, yes. The concept of repealing an entire law disappeared when lawyers became the dominant profession represented in Congress. The trend for some time has been to write adjustment laws that make tiny grammatical changes to existing laws in ways that completely alter the meaning of the entire text.

This has the "advantage" that very few people are in a position to analyze the difference in tone created by a minor change in phrasing in Section 27, Paragraph 3, line 8 of a 4000 page chunk of legaleze.

who are the assclowns (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812289)

that keep sponsoring these bills?

Re:who are the assclowns (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812357)

The good news is it sounds like this one will get the big V.

Re:who are the assclowns (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812471)

The good news is it sounds like this one will get the big V.

That's what he said about the NDAA, and we all know how that turned out. [politico.com]

Re:who are the assclowns (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812777)

You mean like he vetoed the ACTA?
- Oh no he signed that one.
You mean like he asked congress to remove the "indefinite detaiment" from NDAA?
- Oh no he asked them to ADD those two sentences.
- And then he signed it.
- Obama == Bush; can't believe a word coming out of his mouth.

Re:who are the assclowns (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39813013)

at least they should have a public face for comments.
if you are not in their district, they hide like the cockroaches
that they have become.

this is the only new law we need, accountability and exposure on
all these facts and events.

jr

Re:who are the assclowns (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813141)

Lamar Smith, a Rebublican representative of Texas.

Re:who are the assclowns (1)

lightknight (213164) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813581)

The same ones who profit from the changes.

Jesselyn Radack's story (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812291)

The government doesn't need to have any sort of criminal case in order to ' go after ' someone. Take for example the story of Jesselyn Radack, a Justice Department employee involved in the John Walker Lindh case. They decided she was an 'enemy' because she said he needed a Miranda warning - when they couldn't build a legal case against her, they found her employer, got her fired, got her blackballed, got her professional accreditation pulled, put her on a TSA list, and then contacted reporters with defamatory stories about her. They basically ended her 'ordinary' career (now, she works for non-profit human rights organizations). No trial was necessary, no judgement was rendered, no court ever saw the case. The government just did this to her, because it didn't like her.

Now, imagine what they could do if they had all of her bank records, all of her internet history, all of her website interactions, all of her ebay and amazon purchases, etc etc. And when I say 'bank records', i mean any place she uses a credit card or debit card or ATM card, including the time any transaction was put through, how much it was, who the merchant was, and so forth and so on.

We already live in a country where the executive branch ignores the law. What do 'legal protections' matter when prosecutors can just ignore them and harass you regardless?

Not even the pretense of a democracy (0)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812307)

The powers that be aren't even bothering with the pretense that this is a democracy anymore. These new laws, this law in particular, is so fascist "One of the bill's key passages is a provision that gives private companies the right to share cybersecurity data with each other and with the government 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' "...To anybody paying attention, this is just accelerating the march toward fascism in the US and these "Libertarians" and "Teabaggers" are right there marching in lock-step. Good job, geniuses....keep electing "small goverment, pro corporate" politicians. Yeah, small government for the citizens, big government for corporations with plenty of money for a powerful military and militarization of the police. You never hear anybody but Ron Paul talking about a smaller military, not any "libertarian" anyway. Of course, the dog that is Ron Paul has other fleas, like being a big corporatist himself. Remember, it's not your government that's eroding your freedom and privacy, it's the corporations who are bribing them and literally writing the legislation. Your congressman barely even understands what he's signing...he just sees the campaign contribution and knows that private industry is a "job creator". Yeah, right.

Re:Not even the pretense of a democracy (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812425)

Your writing is starting to resemble a manifestos found in a crazy person home.

You might want to seek help.

Also,. look up fascist.

It's not a good bill, but you need to relax and think more. Otherwise any effort you make will go unoticed.

Re:Not even the pretense of a democracy (0)

doston (2372830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812901)

Your writing is starting to resemble a manifestos found in a crazy person home.

You might want to seek help.

Also,. look up fascist.

It's not a good bill, but you need to relax and think more. Otherwise any effort you make will go unoticed.

Anything useful to add to the discussion? Calling me "crazy" and "seek help" and to hit the dictionary, isn't a net gain for slashdot. As far as your middle of the road "it's not a good bill", i think that's quite an understatement. That's like saying Iraq wasn't a good war. And my effort hasn't gone unnocited. My karma is excellent and I metamod you (down) quite frequently.

Sign the Petition (5, Informative)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812355)

Here [aclu.org]

Pass it on.

Re:Sign the Petition (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812469)

Yea, thanks for the link to the DHS watchlist application.

Way too little, way too late.

A general rule... (2)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812455)

> even if the people who write the law have only good intentions, it provides substantial legal cover to others who might not

It's important to remember; It's difficult to grant broad new powers to government or corporations and confine these powers only to the people who agree with your personal philosophy.

Legalizing corporate spying, raiding and pillaging (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812467)

* companies are authorized to share "cyber threat information" with other private companies or the government "notwithstanding any other provision of law." That appears to mean that if a company decides that your private emails, your browsing history, your health care records, or any other information would be helpful in dealing with a "cyber threat," the company can ignore laws that would otherwise limit its disclosure.

CISPA is another way of getting *ANYTHING* labeled a "cyber threat" so an entire can of whoopass can be opened legally. I can conceive how this would be abused by , let's say, limiting what gets blogged when a demonstration is taking place, or being raided.

[*] - http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2012/04/cispa-advances-in-house-as-eff-decries-bills-revisions.ars [arstechnica.com]

POTUS Opposes the Bill (3, Informative)

milbournosphere (1273186) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812499)

Re:POTUS Opposes the Bill (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812623)

Until when? Wasn't he positioned to veto NDAA until they removed the /requirement/ to detain terrorism suspects?

Re:POTUS Opposes the Bill (2)

undeadbill (2490070) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812727)

Agreed. That is what I recall as well. Quite the bait and switch.

The current President voted up Patriot Act II as a Senator. He sponsored tort reform as a Senator that could be used as a bludgeon against free speech. He sponsored ACTA, and tried to keep the contents of the treaty a state secret.

I'd not hold my breath waiting for a veto on this.

Re:POTUS Opposes the Bill (0)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812683)

You know...if he did, it would finally be one thing I could support that he'd done since he reached office.

It would be nice to like one thing he did, before he (hopefully) leaves office soon....

Always assume evil intent (1)

medcalf (68293) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812501)

When granting power to government, always assume evil intent. Two examples:

Let's say Obamacare is upheld. The president could then define what treatments must be covered, what may not be covered, what might not be paid for by gov and so forth. So what prevents President Chimpy McHitlerburton from abortions from being covered? Privacy? Not if Obamacare is upheld, because that law puts the government directly or indirectly into the transaction.

Or what about the various attempts to bring religion into the government? Many of those attempts would make it legal to be explicitly religious in acts of government. So what prevents President Lefty Marx-Castro from making the religious parts of public ceremonies Wiccan?

Re:Always assume evil intent (3, Insightful)

bkmoore (1910118) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812627)

....The president could then define what treatments must be covered, what may not be covered, what might not be paid for by gov and so forth....

You mean as private insurers currently do?

Re:Always assume evil intent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39813297)

You can switch insurers, try doing that with the Republidems!

Re:Always assume evil intent (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812779)

The Hyde Amendment outlawed use of federal funds for almost all abortions since 1976, so its not up to the president.
You also assume Wicca is evil, which many would disagree with.

Who didn't see this coming? (3, Funny)

AntiBasic (83586) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812569)

They told me if I voted for John McCain, we'd see even more invasions of privacy than under George W. Bush, and they were right!

Always assume evil intent (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812573)

Because no matter how "nice" the current administration and management will be, there will be someone in the future looking for a loophole to abuse.

Re:Always assume evil intent (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812607)

Now what are the odds of that? Replying to a comment and coming up with the same heading as the comment above it?

It's a good thing I'm not a gambler -- I'd be taking this as either proof that it's a "good luck day" or cursing the fact that I "wasted" my luck on something so trivial., :D

So why do we need yet another law? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39812669)

Seems like before getting more authority you should demonstrate that you are making good use what you already have.
      Especially since 9/11 the norm appears to be the reverse.

If you can't hit the nail with the hammer get a bigger hammer, then repeat until everything is knocked down except the nail.
      So, if you want a bigger hammer, don't hit the nail.

Contact your representative (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812671)

This bill was introduced by Rep. Michael “Mike” Rogers [R-MI8] with the 112 cosponsors [govtrack.us] . Isn't it great when both parties work together? Brought us the Patriot Act, and now this. If one is yours, feel free to contact them.

Re:Contact your representative (2)

Tancred (3904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813571)

Yes, please do call your reps. If if you're like me and "bipartisan" isn't granular enough, here's the break down so we know who to blame:

The Patriot Act - 2001 (Yeas / Nays / Not Voting):
House of Representatives [house.gov] :
Republicans: 211 / 3 / 5 (96%)
Democrats: 145 / 62 / 4 (68%)
Independents: 1 / 1 / 0 (50%)
Senate [senate.gov] :
Republicans: 49 / 49 / 0 (100%)
Democrats: 48 / 1 / 1 (96%) - Hooray for Russ Feingold
Independents: 1 / 0 / 0 (100%)

CISPA cosponsors (from your link):
Republicans: 86 (out of 242, 35%)
Democrats: 26 (out of 190, 13%)

SOPA had 16 of each on the list, but had various joining dates and withdrawals. I'd like to see the data for the Patriot reauthorization votes, but don't have time right now.

Support media which recognizes this outrage.. (1)

reformacion (1777826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812763)

college&community&public stations a-plenty-- make sure yours is among them:

<URL:https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/26/cispa_critics_warn_cybersecurity_bill_will>

And here are the go-to sites for leadership/updates on the issue:

<URL:http://www.EFF.org>
<URL:http://www.EPIC.org>
(though, just checking.. not sure why EPIC is lagging on this issue thus far.)

And though I don't like ragging on sd'ers, it's a bit troubling that the site which is heralded as bringing the news is "hothardware"..  I guess a peeve of mine is overspecialization.  Ever the humble polyglot, I make it a point to check aggregators of alternative news daily:

<URL:http://www.alternet.org>
<URL:http://www.commondreams.org>

and as re Your Rights specifically, a good podcast is
<URL:http://www.LawAndDisorder.org>

... also, CNet puts together a good "Politics and Law" rss feed:
<URL:http://http://news.cnet.com/8300-13578_3-38.xml>

AMANDLA!

Re:Support media which recognizes this outrage.. (2)

reformacion (1777826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812889)

[apologies, pholks.. I hit Submit instead of Preview by accident, and am just figuring out that I can't edit a comment. Here's the handy-dandy, and proofread, HTML...}

college&community&public stations a-plenty-- make sure yours is among them:
https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/26/cispa_critics_warn_cybersecurity_bill_will [democracynow.org]

And here are the go-to sites for leadership/updates on the issue:
http://www.eff.org/ [eff.org]
http://www.epic.org/ [epic.org] (though, just checking.. not sure why EPIC is lagging on this issue thus far.)
And though I don't like ragging on sd'ers, it's a bit troubling that the site which is heralded as bringing the news is "hothardware".. I guess a peeve of mine is overspecialization. Ever the humble polyglot, I make it a point to check aggregators of alternative news daily:
http://www.alternet.org/ [alternet.org]
http://www.commondreams.org/ [commondreams.org]

and as re Your Rights specifically, a good podcast is http://www.lawanddisorder.org/ [lawanddisorder.org]
... also, CNet puts together a good "Politics and Law" rss feed: http://news.cnet.com/8300-13578_3-38.xml [cnet.com]

AMANDLA!

ps., re the Obama veto "threat".. (1)

reformacion (1777826) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813229)

You'll notice, in the Democracy Now transcript of the next (not-to-miss!) piece, https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/26/targeted_hacker_jacob_appelbaum_on_cispa [democracynow.org] (and definitely see the NSA whistleblower's horror story of which this follows on the heels: http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/23/more_secrets_on_growing_state_surveillance [democracynow.org] ) how Amy Goodman smartly points out that B.O. just recently "threatened to veto" the horrendous NDAA.. but those of us who've been around awhile never believed it for a minute, and were proven right yet again as he didn't veto squat. The Dems appear to be quite a calibrated bit of machinery at "look over there" jujitsu.. keeping would-be concerned citizens constantly SPUN-- too behind the curve to effectively take part in informed democracy when putting food on the table is so all-consuming for most of us..

Also key, is the fact that GOOG et al aren't creating the huge "netroots" groundswell like for SOPA.. they stand to gain (collecting databases on users is after all their biz..) -- says a lot about the nature of the Net Roots, how relatively swiftly/quietly this is sailing thru so far.. hopefully the real citizenry, sans Big Bro Google's help, can raise enough stink by the time this hits Conference Committee. A huge affront to the Bill of Rights-- should be a dealbreaker for any Pol who supports it this election year!
Bottom line: contact your congresscritters, yes. But that's always pretty unrewarding, really-- I've found that printing up many many flyers and posting them widely can be way more satisfying. Perhaps incorporate the well-thought-out Take Action ideas from EFF: https://eff.org/cyberspying [eff.org]
note: they also have a keen infographic on their site somewheres, to entice the visually-orientated.

The difference between a protester and a terrorist (1)

Tastecicles (1153671) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812821)

is a word.

Re:The difference between a protester and a terror (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39813309)

is purely subjective.

"Private companies" need to be illegal (0)

erroneus (253617) | more than 2 years ago | (#39812971)

We have seen it and we will continue seeing it. These private companies operate PRIVATELY (just like the Federal Reserve which *still* has not been audited by the government in a very, very long time) and represent an opaque government operation. Any just as we saw in cases of contractors and companies in Iraq and Afghanistan, anything they are caught doing will not be punished and/or they will receive "retroactive immunity" for anything they might have done or will do in the future.

All of this flies in the face of the original design and intent of this country's government. It was designed to prevent the kinds of abuses we are seeing today. At every turn, "more power, more power, more power." We've seen this pattern in history in the build-up of the world's worst villains.

We live in new "black and white" times. In much the same way we look at ancient video clips from WW2 that seem like they happened an impossibly long time ago, decades from now, school children will see two dimensional "high definition" projections of our news stories and jackboots marching down our public streets. ("Yes, that was a looong time ago kids... they only had 2D display technology back then.")

I've been avoiding it all these years, but I think it's about time I start buying "supplies" for what may come...

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...