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!

Mozilla Calls CISPA an "Alarming" Threat to Privacy

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the do-not-like dept.

Privacy 107

Sparrowvsrevolution writes "Mozilla has taken a public stand against the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, saying that it has a 'broad and alarming reach' that 'infringes on our privacy.' That makes it the first major tech firm to speak out against CISPA. Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Intel, Oracle and Symantec are all included among the companies that support the bill, which passed the House late last month and is now being considered in the Senate. Google has so far declined to take a stand supporting or opposing the bill."

cancel ×

107 comments

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

And the internet responds with . . . (2, Insightful)

InvisibleClergy (1430277) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872937)

..."Why the hell did it take you this long?"

Re:And the internet responds with . . . (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873033)

Well at least they finally did. This would make me want to use Mozilla browsers while avoiding MS, Google browsers. (No idea where Apple or Opera stands.)

Re:And the internet responds with . . . (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39874931)

Yea way to teach those other companies a lesson. You wont use any of their free products!

Re:And the internet responds with . . . (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875325)

Yea way to teach those other companies a lesson. You wont use any of their free products!

Usage statistics can determine certain things. I imagine the size of the install base affects how much Google pays Mozilla to be set as the default search engine.

Re:And the internet responds with . . . (1)

anared (2599669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39877145)

Why not use Firefox anyway? The best browser around, its Aurora version that is... I recommend you all to check the Aurora channel out ;)

Re:And the internet responds with . . . (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39878069)

I use firefox. Can't live without it. I just wish it wasn't so slow, that it didn't choke on flash on Linux and that more extensions could be (un)loaded without restarting.

Google (5, Informative)

recoiledsnake (879048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872975)

Google did indicate that they're lobbying on it, but won't say which way, which leads to the question. If they're lobbying against it, why would they hide it?

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/223069-google-acknowledges-lobbying-on-cybersecurity-bill-cispa [thehill.com]

There are strong indications that Google is actually supporting the bill behind closed doors and hiding it avoid a public backlash.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/221977-gop-chairman-google-supportive-of-controversial-cybersecurity-bill-cispa [thehill.com]

Re:Google (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873255)

Thanks as always to the Microsoft shills.

Re:Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39875803)

Nothing the GP said suggests that he's a "Microsoft shill", and you know it. You are a liar.

Re:Google (1)

mathew7 (863867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39876311)

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/04/28/1549251/microsoft-backs-away-from-cispa-support-citing-privacy [slashdot.org]

So I don't get how Mozilla is the 1st tech company to drop it? Modern journalism is terrible.

Re:Google (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39878843)

After this story was published, a Microsoft rep stepped-forward and said they still support CISPA in the Senate. So basically you're quoting a bad report. sssssss

Re:Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39879079)

After this story was published, a Microsoft rep stepped-forward and said they still support CISPA in the Senate.

GP has provided a citation for their stance. Where's yours? (waits) Doesn't exist does it? Your claim is false. [slashdot.org]

sssssss

Are you.. is that supposed to be a "shame on you for spreading lies" thing? You cannot even be bothered to back up your claim (and thus by your own logic, we must treat your claim as a lie), and you have the balls to go "shame on you" to GP?

Re:Google (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39880393)

>>>GP has provided a citation for their stance. Where's yours? (waits) Doesn't exist does it? Your claim is false.

RTFA (read the fucking article) Mr. Anonymous Coward. The citation you seek is near the bottom of the page. I stated that twice on this page: "It's in the article."

Also stop posting anonymously. I know you are a regular /. poster because you keep cyberstalking my posts. I'm guessing you're trying to use AC so you don't get modded "troll" on your actual ID.

Re:Google (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873325)

Probably in agreement so youtube is not shutdown or some other unfavorable consequence is not levied against them.

Re:Google (3, Interesting)

Jiro (131519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873623)

Does this count as doing evil?

Re:Google (4, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 2 years ago | (#39874809)

Does this count as doing evil?

Yes.

Re:Google (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875437)

Does this count as doing evil?

Nah.. after this [slashdot.org] one must conclude that it would have to actually come to murder for Google to consider something "evil".

Re:Google (3, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873653)

As I explained in my article submission to slashdot (same topic): "They get immunity from civil and criminal liability in court." - In other words you can't sue your ISP or website corporation, if they reveal your private data, surf history and/or passwords to the U.S. DHS.

Re:Google (2, Interesting)

AHuxley (892839) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873805)

Feel that push for CISPA to get real telco immunity? The company is protected from users, using poor code and the feds get CALEA like access.
No more "Marius" momments in the press, it would all be logged under national security.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/04/how-expansive-immunity-clauses-cispa-will-facilitate-abuse-user-privacy-0 [eff.org]
"If a company learns about a security flaw, fails to fix it, and users' information is misused or stolen, companies cannot be held liable as long as the company acted “in good faith” according to CISPA."
Until then its "Alright sir, I just need to check inside your sever."
Yes, you're a smart admin, aren't you sir?

Re:Google (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39876429)

The only shred of evidence offered in that second article is:

"They've been helpful and supportive of trying to find the right language in the bill," Rogers said

So in other words, they are lobbying to change it.

I don't see how that translates to "There are strong indications that Google is actually supporting the bill". There's an indication, from a single person with a highly vested interest in making people think everyone supports him, that Google is trying to change/fix the bill.

The jump you make is kind of like saying that if you point out an improvement to one of Mitt Romney's policies, clearly you're going to vote for him.

Mozilla (1)

trancemission (823050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872983)

The Mozila site shows no mention of this.

I am not usually up for direct action[0] etc.. but maybe Mozilla could highlight this by including an 'alert' in the next update or show a page with the details - rather than a 'Change Log / Whats New' page [Which few people read anyways]

Silly me.

0. A browser should only render html as defined - like - years ago....

Re:Mozilla (1)

Xest (935314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39876963)

Yeah, cos that's what everyone of a globally used browser wants to see - American centric political issues blasted in their face.

The problem is if Mozilla does this where do they stop? start putting up alerts for every internet related political issue in all major countries?

It's not really the job of the browser to be a news source.

Troubling scenarios? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39872985)

If Mozilla had laid out some hypothetical scenarios where abuse or misuse could occur, that might be convincing. Just saying, "this is an assault on privacy and should be rejected" is not very.

Re:Troubling scenarios? (3, Funny)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873025)

Just saying, "this is an assault on privacy and should be rejected" is not very

Oh crap! Look everyone! He got cut off by CISPA!

Simple (0)

stanlyb (1839382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39872987)

Very simple. Because it does not matter what they say. The bill is already, almost i mean, cooked and ready to go. So now Mozzila could pretend that they are the good guys (by crying river over "privacy"), and in the same time the masters of disguise would not punish them, as the bill has already passed the most important obstacle.

I thought Microsoft switched their tune... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873007)

And came out against CISPA after it passed Congress.

Re:I thought Microsoft switched their tune... (1)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873063)

How could CISPA have "passed Congress" if it's only just now going to the Senate for a vote?

Re:I thought Microsoft switched their tune... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873195)

It passed the House, just waiting on Senate and President rubber stamps.

Re:I thought Microsoft switched their tune... (1)

DJ Particle (1442247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875075)

Actually, President has said he's veto it

Re:I thought Microsoft switched their tune... (1)

DJ Particle (1442247) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875079)

(crap...didn't catch my typo until after I hit submit O.o)

Re:I thought Microsoft switched their tune... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39877409)

He also said he'd veto NDAA.

What he says doesn't mean squat.

Re:I thought Microsoft switched their tune... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873091)

No Microsoft is still pro-CISPA according to the linked article.

Public opinion not relevant (5, Insightful)

mrbester (200927) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873027)

" We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation."

Unsurprisingly the main stakeholder, the one who would be most affected by this legislation is never consulted.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (2, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873103)

" We hope the Senate takes the time to fully and openly consider these issues with stakeholder input before moving forward with this legislation."

Unsurprisingly the main stakeholder, the one who would be most affected by this legislation is never consulted.

Well, that's what you get for thinking we still have a government by, for, and of the People.

Apparently, when Bush referred to the Constitution as "just a goddamn piece of paper" he wasn't only being a traitorous ass, he was setting legal precedent.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (5, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873205)

Apparently, when Bush referred to the Constitution as "just a goddamn piece of paper" he wasn't only being a traitorous ass, he was setting legal precedent.

Yeah! Except for the fact that he never said anything remotely like that. [factcheck.org]

True scepticism means doubting the things you really want to be true.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (4, Funny)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873337)

Checked out the link... interesting read.

Interesting because, considering the plethora of stupid shit that man said [wikiquote.org] in his 8 years as President, [about.com] people actually bother to take time to make stuff up.

Anyway, thanks for the update, I'll remove that notion from my vernacular immediately.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1, Informative)

hilather (1079603) | more than 2 years ago | (#39877091)

Checked out the link... interesting read. Interesting because, considering the plethora of stupid shit that man said [wikiquote.org] in his 8 years as President, [about.com] people actually bother to take time to make stuff up. Anyway, thanks for the update, I'll remove that notion from my vernacular immediately.

Wikiquote seems to disagree (although it mentions it was said behind closed doors...).

Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_W._Bush

Re:Public opinion not relevant (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873207)

I cannot find a citation that Bush said this, anymore than I can find a citation that Obama said it. I suspect it's an urban legend.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873243)

And I was right. Please do NOT repeat lies that have no evidence of being true. It's as bad as citing Alex Jones as a reliable source.

Doug Thompson (original author of that hit piece) says: "This is to let you know that the piece on Bush and the Constitution has been changed and reads: ' This article was based on sources that we thought, at the time, were reliable. We have since discovered reasons to doubt their veracity. For that reason, this article has been removed from our database. ' I no longer stand behind that article or its conclusions and have said so in answers to several recent queries."

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873413)

And I was right. Please do NOT repeat lies that have no evidence of being true. It's as bad as citing Alex Jones as a reliable source.

Indeed; I have since removed the phrase from my vocabulary.

However, though he may not have used those exact words, other words and actions of his make me confident that the aforementioned phrase is an accurate descriptor of Bush's attitude regarding the framework of our republic.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873489)

Unless Bush is delusional like our current president (claims to be a "constitutional scholar" while bending-over backwards to strike-out the Bill of Rights). I love how his right-hand advisor claimed he doesn't need the People's Congress for permission to bomb Libya..... he got the permission from the unelected bureaucrats at the U.N.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

whoever57 (658626) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873799)

(claims to be a "constitutional scholar" while bending-over backwards to strike-out the Bill of Rights)

In this context, you mis-understand the word "scholar". This usage of "scholar" means someone who studies something in detail to reveal its weaknesses.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873919)

As a key and Founding member of the U.N. We are required to provided support if they vote for action. thus it was all done legally.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875037)

Being a scholar of something doesn't necessarily mean you actually like it. You may be studying it so you can figure out how to subvert or destroy it.

However, I fail to see how Obama has done anything with regard to the Constitution or Bill of Rights that is any worse, or even different, from what presidents before him (namely Bush) have done.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39878925)

I can't believe you're defending Obama. Both he and Bush should be tried in Nuremberg for war crimes.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39879467)

Defending Obama? I'm only defending the bit about being a "constitutional scholar", and I pointed out how he hasn't done anything any worse than Bush. So, obviously, logically speaking, if Bush should be tried in Nuremberg, then so should Obama. I never said Bush was any good either, just that Obama was the same.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39880283)

P.S. And I don't recall Bush ordering the assasination of American citizens (including a 16 year old boy). That alone tips the balance of making Obama "worse". All citizens have a right to being captured, and then placed on trial.

Obama has also expanded the power of the TSA not just as airports, but as to search/patdown people in train terminals, along interstates, at post offices/unemployment centers, and just recently: Bus-riders in Texas. (So-called VIPR teams; what a great orwellian name.)

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39874209)

Please do NOT repeat lies that have no evidence of being true.

I think you just broke my irony meter with that line. Thanks.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873253)

They both said it with their actions.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (3, Insightful)

ATMAvatar (648864) | more than 2 years ago | (#39874865)

Well, that's what you get for thinking we still have a government by, for, and of the People.

We still do. Remember: corporations are people, too.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (2)

Nugoo (1794744) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873193)

Yeah, there should be some kind of lobbyist for normal people. But how do you choose just a few individuals to represent such a huge population? Maybe you could have, like, a vote, or something?

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

asa (33102) | more than 2 years ago | (#39874119)

How? Simple. You support organizations like Mozilla that exist to give you a voice on the Internet and to put the needs of users above the needs of stockholders.

Re:Public opinion not relevant (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873683)

Welcome to the United States. You must be new here.

Finally someone that matters speaks up! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873105)

Thank goodness a corporation finally spoke up against this bill! I mean sure, all those citizens did too, but they're just people and that's not how we do things in America.

Perhaps this can be a catalyst (1)

CaptSwifty (61835) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873119)

Perhaps this can be a catalyst for other tech companies opposing this bill; we can hope it could cause enough bad PR for companies that are supporting CISPA that they reverse their position.

One can dream...

Maybe there is no stopping these people at all?? (5, Insightful)

dryriver (1010635) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873131)

The powers-that-be seem to have a set plan for the internet: To control everything that can be controlled, and to shut down/filter out anything that can't. It doesn't matter what the bill is called: SOPA. PIPA. CISPA. They could call it FIRECRACKER and it wouldn't matter. ---- They will keep coming back, and coming back, and coming back with the same control-the-internet-horseshit under a different name, until the desired deed is done: All user data surveilled & catalogued. All internet piracy rubbed out. All offending sites closed down. Maybe even a "War on Internet Conspiracy Theories" needs to be fought, so everyone winds up believing the - often terribly contrived - official accounts of the history we are currently living through, and the events that are shaping the world. ---- Perhaps the powers-that-be (PTB) had this plan for the Internet all along: Don't do anything to regulate it in the beginning, so it becomes a free space where anything goes, and one that grows fast and thrives. But once it has "matured" - with over say 3 Billion people online - that's when you want to regulate the fuck out of it, and turn it into something that doesn't question corporate and government, but rather bends over backwards to it. ---------- Take it from me, these powerful people follow a set agenda, and that agenda say "The Internet must be brought under control". What does it matter that CISPA passes or not. They will wait 3 months and push another bill with the same content through. ----------- It was nice knowing you, Free Internet. Too bad that future generations will never experience you, because the only Internet they know will be a bound, gagged, homogenized and filtered Internet. Farewell, old friend. You served humanity, and served it well. Too bad that the PTB don't want you to stay this way. And too bad that they are ignorant enough to want to destroy everything that made the internet useful and interesting.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873351)

>>> turn it into something that doesn't question corporate and government

They can't take away our first amendment right to speak & publish our thoughts. And if they manage to succeed..... well we still have the second.

Re:take away (3, Informative)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873695)

(Bitter)
Of course they can.
You seem to think the Constitution means something.
However Corporations now have Sudo powers over the Constitution.
(/Bitter)

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39875097)

They can't take away our first amendment right to speak & publish our thoughts.

As for out first amendment rights to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances, well, fuck [slashdot.org] that [slashdot.org] , amirite?

If you truly feel that you are not pissing on my first amendment rights, then please explain how me and a couple hundred others all collectively lobbying against our government for a shared goal that we all support is different from what the EFF, NRA, and PETA do.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875241)

The 2nd Amendment isn't much help. The people who actually care about that, and are armed, are also usually the same people that actually like bills like this. They'll get in a big huff about Obama's birth certificate or abortion or whatever, but they don't give a shit about online freedom or First Amendment rights, and most would prefer to rescind the 1A, especially the bit about religion, as they want to establish a theocracy.

Now of course, this obviously doesn't describe all 2A supporters, but the ones who believe in free access to firearms and who also believe in freedom of/from religion are a small minority.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39877223)

Now of course, this obviously doesn't describe all 2A supporters, but the ones who believe in free access to firearms and who also believe in freedom of/from religion are a small minority.

[citation needed] Most second amendment supporters are strongly against "big goverment" and anything that takes away from constitutional rights. There may be a lot of people who are conservative and/or religious (though not nearly as many as you clearly believe), but that has nothing to do with whether or not you value online freedom or the first amendment. I'm really not sure where you're pulling this drivel from that all or a majority of second amendment supporters are birthers, want the goverment to limit freedom of speech or privacy, or want to establish a theocracy... You've clearly got some pretty strong bias and not a lot of information or exposure.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39877883)

Unfortunately my experience with second amendment supports hasn't been that good, they may not be the majority but they are the most visible. A lot of them claim they are against big government but what they want is big government that they like. Quite a number of the ones I met believed that Bush was a small government president. These were the same people who wanted government to step in with he Dubai Ports World purchase, as well as the "Ground Zero" Mosque.These individuals also want bigger government to go spread the American Way to every country and seem to think that it would be a good idea to go into Iran. The ones like this I know also believe that Obama is a secrete Muslim communist/socialist born in Kenya who is going to take their guns.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39879353)

Thank you, I couldn't have said it any better myself. This is exactly what I was talking about.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39879683)

You may have a lot of annecdotal experience with demographics that contain people who own guns, that doesn't mean everyone who owns guns fits in those demographics. An estimated 45% of American households own at least one gun, only 35% of the country claims to be Republican. Obviously your information doesn't add up.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39880627)

I never said that these people were a majority of Americans, a majority of Republicans, or even a majority of gun owners. I thought I clearly stated that they probably are not:

Unfortunately my experience with second amendment supports hasn't been that good, they may not be the majority but they are the most visible.

The problem is they are among the most visible gun owners and give responsible reasonable ones a bad name. They are like that problem family member that goes to get togethers, drinks way too much, and everyone feels embarrassed by. On the other side of the spectrum I have family members who believe that I have effectively murdered my children simply because I own firearms. Granted they all live out on the west coast in large cities so only people who they ever hear about owning a firearm are criminals in the news and what they see in movies. They can't fathom why a rational person would choose to own a few long guns, let alone why someone would would want a handgun. Also I no longer hunt with the group of guys who were the wacky ones that Grishnakh described. It seem every time we went out a CO would show up and one of them would be in violation of something, like having lead shot on federal land, not having their HIP certification, littering, not having the plug in the magazine of their shotgun, etc. You rarely hear about the good hunters or good firearm owners as they don't cause problems and tend not to draw attention to themselves.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39879039)

>>>armed people that actually like bills like this.

That's not what I'm seeing at Infowars.com and other "alt-media" sites with open comments. The people armed to the teeth hate CISPA, Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. Don't be deluded into thinking Republican Party views == the view of gunholders

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (0)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39879519)

The gunholders vote Republican stridently, so I see no reason to believe that the people on your "alt-media" sites are anything but a very small minority, and the majority of them agree with Republican Party views. Sure, many gunholders will vote for Ron Paul (the only "Republican" who's against the Patriot Act) in the primaries, but as soon as that's over and he loses, they'll flock to back Romney, just like they did in '08 when they flocked to support McCain and Palin. If they were really that numerous, then Paul wouldn't have had such tiny numbers at the polls, given how many gunholders there are in this country.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (0)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39879879)

The gun owners, like any special interests group, pick and choose who has the best track record with their interests. Show some statistics and some facts, drop your meaningless annecdotal experiences. 45% of the households in this country own a gun. Only 31% of the country identifies as republicans, and only 41% of republicans own guns.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39880219)

>>>then Paul wouldn't have had such tiny numbers at the polls

Paul is racking up states left-and-right. In just the last few weeks, he's won Iowa, Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, and Louisiana. Plus a majority of the delegates in Romney's home state of Massachusetts. (And I expect Paul will win Maine, Nevada, Alaska, and the ~10 former Santorum states.)

Furthermore according to CBS polling, in a Paul v. Obama runoff the congressman would do just as well as Romney. His support is not "small"..... you need to turn-off the TV media and start doing your own online news-gathering.

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (3, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873491)

Don't feel too bad.

They can regulate wired connections to a point. Obviously, because it takes major corporations to own and operate those physical connections .

When the Internet becomes so un-free that everyday people begin seeking an alternative, one will be found. Have people stopped smoking weed because it is illegal? No. Stopped speeding? No. Will they stop enjoying a free Internet because it becomes illegal? Hell no.

You can design an infrastructure to be anonymous and private from the very beginning, and we are starting to do this on many fronts. While there have been some fights against such infrastructures with moderate successes, it has been against a fledgling infrastructure with pitiful participation by everyday people.

Look at TBP, Kazaa, Limewire for example. People have demonstrated that they will find a way to engage in the behavior they wish to engage in. Period. You have an entire generation growing up that started with a free Internet, and a generation behind that created it. Neither will sit back and accept destruction.

Those are the kiddie pool versions. Darknets and Mesh Networking can usher in a new age where shutting down dissenting opinion and punishing people will actually require roving vans triangulating signals like in Pump Up The Volume.

The PTB has just started, but so have we. The war has not even begun yet and you are throwing in the towel. Don't be that guy man. Hack the Planet! :)

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875283)

Have people stopped smoking weed because it is illegal? No

Does a majority of the population smoke weed? No. Does a large enough portion of the population believe in legalization to get it done? No (it's not even a majority). So, it remains illegal because most of the population either wants it to stay that way, or because they don't care, and the politicians are following along to get votes. Just look at what happens if you criticize any Obama fans about his record on marijuana prohibition.

Stopped speeding? No.

Same thing. A majority of the population doesn't care or thinks the status quo is fine and that we don't need higher speed limits, so that's the way it stays.

Will they stop enjoying a free Internet because it becomes illegal? Hell no.

Don't be so sure. The only really anonymous way of using the internet I've seen is TOR, and that has serious problems: namely, if you use it, it's pretty obvious that you're using it, even though "they" can't tell what you're doing on there or see any of the data that you might be sharing. So you're only allowed to use it as long as the authorities allow it. All they have to do is ban it, and actively enforce the ban, and your anonymity is gone. The internet was never designed to be anonymous, only resilient, and all the attempts at anonymity seem to depend on misdirection (e.g., directing traffic through computers in other countries where the authorities don't have access).

Re:Maybe there is no stopping these people at all? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873691)

The powers-that-be seem to have a set plan for the internet:

I, at the risk of doffing my tinfoil hat (the z rays might get me), would suggest that the plan is for Us, and Includes the internet.

They are so eager to sell us out (1)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873135)

We should be as eager not to give them any more money, too, whenever we can.

Re:They are so eager to sell us out (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873245)

We should be as eager not to give them any more money, too, whenever we can.

And yet millions of people will go to see movies like Dark Knight Rises and The Avengers this summer. Most of them will probably never even consider that every penny they spend on those tickets will find its way into a Congressman's pocket in order to push through the next SOPA/PIPA/CISPA bill or ACTA/TPP trade agreement.

We dont need new laws... We do need new Government (1)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873159)

We dont need new laws... We do need new Government.

There are too many laws. Many of which do not represent the people's interests at all.

The people have already spoken... however its the corporations that have the power to shut the people up, and lock them up. ... and they're working on that right now.

Re:We dont need new laws... We do need new Governm (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875297)

It was only a minority of the people who spoke. The majority doesn't care, and just wants to watch Survivor or whatever the latest reality TV fad is.

if Mozilla was really serious (0)

FudRucker (866063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873187)

they would cut their ties with Google since Google is in bed with the NSA and other government snoops

Microsoft quietly dropping support, sort of. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873223)

Microsoft is in a bad position: from a legal and business strategy view, CISPA is untenable for liability and privacy reasons. The bill ultimately puts us into a "bad cop" role doing things that customers perceive as hostile to security of their personal and business data. In the middle of a huge push toward cloud services, do we want customers distracted by the idea that putting their data and processes in the cloud means that everything they have becomes fodder for data mining for p2p music shar^h^h^h^hdomestic terrorists? We're going to do this just to try and save a dead music biz model? Aw hell no. However, certain brand-focused marketing strategy geniuses have decided it's bad for msft to be seen as changing positions, so they stood up on Monday and declared "All's well, full steam ahead!" without even exec consensus. It's embarrassing.

Re:Microsoft quietly dropping support, sort of. (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875311)

One problem companies like MS are going to have (i.e. companies that are into cloud computing) is that foreign customers are going to be unwilling to use their services because they (rightly) believe that using a USA-based service will mean all their private data is available to the US Government, and any corporations that it's in the pocket of.

Of course, the MAFIAA industries don't care about this as it doesn't affect them, but it certainly does affect the tech industry.

What is being offered this time? (1)

majesticmerc (1353125) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873237)

Why, when so many tech companies were opposed to SOPA, are they behind CISPA? What benefit are they now being offered that they weren't before?

Re:What is being offered this time? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873417)

As I explained in my submission to slashdot (same topic): "They get immunity from civil and criminal liability in the courts." -- In other words you can't sue your ISP or website corporation, if they reveal your private data to the U.S. DHS.

Re:What is being offered this time? (5, Interesting)

dcollins117 (1267462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873537)

Why, when so many tech companies were opposed to SOPA, are they behind CISPA? What benefit are they now being offered that they weren't before?

SOPA required tech companies to spend money and allocate resources toward something that did not benefit them. CISPA gives the tech companies unrestrained ability to profit from selling what was previously considered your private data. As a bonus, the law provides them immunity from lawsuits, so no matter what they do with the data, lawful or not, they cannot be held accountable.

Re:What is being offered this time? (1)

a90Tj2P7 (1533853) | more than 2 years ago | (#39877341)

Why, when so many tech companies were opposed to SOPA, are they behind CISPA? What benefit are they now being offered that they weren't before?

RTFBills. Both have something to do with internet privacy, and that's the end of the similarities. SOPA was about expanding copyright laws and enforcement, it turned people and companies into criminals and allowed for ridiculous levels of censorship - like blacklisting domains for linking to an infringing site or holding a website accountable for something a user posted/uploaded. CISPA is about making it easier for the federal goverment to solicit information from companies. People need to stop making SOPA arguments against CISPA, because most of them are unrelated and they aren't helping, they're taking time and emphasis away from legitimate arguments against a very different bill, with a very different purpose and very different problems.

Net Neutrality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873327)

I'm confused now, about a year ago everyone here was begging for the DNC's version of Net Neutrality. I looked it up and it was basically putting three guys at the FCC in charge of which web traffic should be blocked. (I know what everyone else says net neutrality is, but I'm going on what was actually proposed). You all here kept bashing the GOP for opposing it and now we see bill after bill named something else that basically does the same thing and NOW everyone is against it?

Anyways, I thought increased government regulation was the solution to all our economic and social problems. Why is it that now regulation is suddenly a bad thing? When you want to tell eveyone else how to live while no one has the right to say anything about you, that is called a dictatorship.

Anyways, my point is that you all are begging for stuff like this and do everything you can to get people elected to do things like this. Why are you upset when you finally get what you want?

Legalspeak (3, Interesting)

steelyeyedmissileman (1657583) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873449)

I finally got up the courage to try taking a look at the actual bill; fortunately it's not very long, and isn't too dense, but may leave a few loopholes that could be of concern. A few thoughts:

In Sec. 2(b)(1):
`(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes--
`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and
`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.

Sounds like individuals are at least allowed to own/use security systems/software for protection and testing of their own network, so no reduction to rights in that regard.

In Sec. 2(b)(3): Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--
`(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;

Any information shared by an entity must be treated in accordance to the desires of that entity; so a lot of the privacy issues fall to the sharing entity itself for protection. Possible loop-hole here: what happens if information is not well-protected by a sharing agency? Does this give the government open reign on information if it's not explicitly forbidden them? Or worse, the final part of this section states:

In Sec. 2(b)(3): Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)--
`(D) shall be exempt from disclosure under a State, local, or tribal law or regulation that requires public disclosure of information by a public or quasi-public entity.

If a business chooses to share personal information about customers, there is no way for customers to find out or be aware it is happening. I'm sure there are good reasons to put an exemption like this in the bill, but the lack of explicit protection to the individual customers and citizens is glaring.

As for the limits on what can be done with the information:
Sec 2(c):
`(2) AFFIRMATIVE SEARCH RESTRICTION- The Federal Government may not affirmatively search cyber threat information shared with the Federal Government under subsection (b) for a purpose other than a purpose referred to in paragraph (1)(B).

I'm not familiar with the legal-speak here; what is meant by "affirmatively" searching?

There are some good things I found too. The remainder of Sec 2 is a good start, but it's hard to know if it is sufficient protection for individual rights and privacy or not. Overall, I'm really not sure how I feel about this bill. I don't see anything obvious that tells me its a bad idea, but I don't fully understand all of the nuances of what could happen with it. It seems any government that wants to exploit its citizens will do so, regardless of the legal code, so I'm not sure how this bill would make that kind of abuse any more likely.

Re:Legalspeak (1)

hennypenny (695115) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873577)

Seems to me that if it's not clear that this is a useful bill then it's either poorly written or not useful, or both. Is that not justification to be opposed?

Not a "major tech firm" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873515)

Mozilla is an NPO, not a "major tech firm" as the summary claims. There is a massive, massive difference.

Re:Not a "major tech firm" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39873837)

Yeah, Mozilla is a pretty small player in the tech field.

Email your legistators (3)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873583)

Let your Senators and congressman know your feeling on this issue. Only through a widespread outcry will the legislators understand that our freedoms and privacy (which is a cornerstone of freedom) is dear and we understand the implication of this legislation. Given the track record of say Bush in office who directed the Justice Department to try and bring cases against Democratic Legislators (so much so that several quit, others fired), we can't trust the government to always act in our best interest (mostly but not always). Once a privacy is pried open, its hard to get the sardine can closed again.

Re:Email your legistators (1)

Scarred Intellect (1648867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39875403)

Done. They don't care. My Congressman voted FOR CISPA, when I wrote to him AGAINST SOPA and internet regulation. My Senator (Maria Cantwell) responded to my anti-CISPA letter with a letter that had absolutely no mention of CISPA at all.

Next step: vote them out. I will not vote for any incumbents. They're all part of the problem, they're politicians second, greedy people first, and willing to do something good for their country last with personal agendas in between.

After that, we need to get rid of this stupid party system. Party politics led to the Nazi's seizing power (I know I know, there's more to it, but it makes for a convenient argument)

Re:Email your legistators (1)

Bob the Super Hamste (1152367) | more than 2 years ago | (#39878221)

Wow you got a response back from your senator I would consider that a victory. Granted it wasn't a response to what you sent them but a response none the less. Whenever I write to my representatives at the federal level I never get a response (Amy Klobuchar, Al Franken, Norm Coleman previously, and John Kline). I would love it if they would remove the party identifier from the ballot so that people couldn't just vote down the party line and actually had to know who they were voting for.

Re:Email your legistators (1)

StillNeedMoreCoffee (123989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39880841)

All generalizations are false, including this one.

All incumbents are not bad. Actually the mess we have been in the last few years voting in Tea Party members shows that new or change is not always good. The process of governing is one that is complex and involved and people who have been in it for a couple of years already can be better at it.

So the simplification of all incumbents is dangerous. Certainly we should throw all the bums out, we just have to make sure its the bums we are throwing out and that we are not throwing in other bums.

The parties do serve a purpose for like minded people to get together as a force with more muscle rather than individuals fighting alone. We have a natural tendency to band together in interest groups (evolution and survival) so it is natural and inevitable that parties exist or they will form. We have seen in the past 30 years or so a party can change, the republicans have been pulling a hard right, I expect to see soon a group of them pull away and form a new party, but not sure if it will be the conservatives that want to govern pulling back left or the crazies pulling out to the extremer right. It will be intersting. They could take a cue from that other Republican Teddy Roosevelt and call it the Bull party. (Mooses look too much like the democratic mascot)

Leverage the community (1)

WillgasM (1646719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39873833)

We need to get people fired up. Once people are sufficiently abuzz about this issue, the corporations will take notice. Question the tech companies about their stance on this bill. If they won't divulge their involvement one way or the other, assume they're pro CISPA and blast them for it. If congress will only listen to corporations, then make sure corporations are on our side. Make sure they know that if they aren't with us, they're against us. Make sure they know we hold them accountable and there will be backlash. All the while, keep nipping at your congressman's heals. I personally had a debate on Facebook with my representative, and now we're scheduling a personal meeting so I can voice the concerns *we* all share. Understand that your congressman probably thinks he's protecting us from foreign super-hackers, rather than handing us over to corrupt corporations and greedy law enforcement agencies. Give them alternatives. We see all too well that they don't know jack shit about the Internet, so educate them. Tell them how we go about recognizing and preventing attacks. Tell them about the challenges we, the community, face. Tell them what could be done to help us work better. Explain to them how things work, and teach them why CISPA won't. Don't just yell, "Guvment stealing my tubes" at the top of your lungs, or you'll quickly be tuned out. Be intelligible and treat it for what it is: teaching some old dude how the Internet works. If after all the politeness and slow-talking they still refuse to listen to reason, then they are stupid or corrupt and should be exposed as such. Write about your experience. Spread your findings far and wide. Make sure they understand just who the fuck they're fucking with. We are the Internet. We are the largest community the world has ever seen. If you threaten us; fear our retaliation, for it will be great.

Wake up (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39874123)

Have you all been asleep for the passed decade, MS as been collecting data on every computer user for years, They have the monopoly. The first thing that happens when you boot up a new computer for the first time is activate windows by giving ms all your personal details, then every month the computer phones home telling ms what you have installed in the system, that comes before registering the system with the manufactures for the warranty

Google is another collecting personal details, and flipping round the streets, collecting data on wireless systems, Then there is the willingness for every face book user to stick their mug shots on the world wide photo wall, Facebook has been used by the police for identification, Every website you joint you give your personal details, Ever wondered why you get adverts pinpointing your town/city of residence

Everybody should start using Tails (Tor) with encryption or the US own mobile security system LSP, downloadable from distrowatch dot com. or sourceforge dot net, Through the fact is they have the full blown lowdown on everybody world wide now

The next thing will be, you have to couple up to your mobile phone or computer before you go to sleep so that they know what you're dreaming about.

Mozilla!? (1)

labnet (457441) | more than 2 years ago | (#39874949)

Mozilla!? Isn't that run by a bunch of freedom loving hippies.

Alternative Net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39875421)

Well, then let's use technology, and our knowledge of how things work underneath to create a new system. Initially, it could be based on an overlay network like I2P, bur really beefed up. Over time, create completely separate links outside the main Internet. They can regulate all they want, but they can't technically control what they can't see. Even more, let's use cloud software (like open source CloudFoundry for example) modified to exist only within that domain, so new applications and services can thrive within the alternative network. Nobody is liable because they are everywhere and nowhere. Let's use advanced display protocols like SPICE to remote access virtual "screens" that exist only in the alternative network. No records. Any way, there may be hundreds of possible ways to slice and dice this problem from the technical perspective. If you can achieve a system with strong plausible deniability, we are on to something.

So.... (1)

Dripdry (1062282) | more than 2 years ago | (#39877695)

Once the internet has all our data, where is all this profit coming from, precisely? We have an economy that can't seem to grow in the last decade or more. We have infrastructure falling apart. Where, precisely, are these dollars coming from that are going to benefit companies that support this?

They're thinking about the next 4 quarters of profit and not about the fact that they value our future at about $0.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?