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!

Obama Administration Threatens CISPA Veto, EFF Urges Action

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the unexpected-turn-of-events dept.

Electronic Frontier Foundation 106

An anonymous reader sent in word that the Obama administration is threatening to veto CISPA in its current form because "The Administration, however, remains concerned that the bill does not require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information (PDF) when sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable — and not granted immunity — for failing to safeguard personal information adequately. The Administration is committed to working with all stakeholders to find a workable solution to this challenge." Ars has a few more details, the EFF urges U.S. citizens to oppose the bill, and one of the sponsors tweeted that those opposed to the bill are basement dwelling fourteen-year-olds. Note that the Administration still wants there to be some kind of comprehensive data sharing law in the name of cybersecurity, so this may very well rear its head again in the coming months.

cancel ×

106 comments

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

Why, America? Damn. (1)

eyenot (102141) | about a year ago | (#43471033)

American politics is all over the board on so many things.

What kind of United States citizen wants to oppose the POTUS on protecting citizens' rights from corporate interests?

Re:Why, America? Damn. (5, Insightful)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year ago | (#43471087)

That isn't what he's doing. He's asking that they share information, they just don't share irrelevant information. The EFF is in opposition by asking that no information be shared at all.

It's basically one group wants to stick a rebar up your ass, Obama says "no, a silicone dildo with lube will do", EFF says "don't stick anything up our asses."

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43471307)

But it feels too good. I am so confused now.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (3, Funny)

pvera (250260) | about a year ago | (#43472077)

It's basically one group wants to stick a rebar up your ass, Obama says "no, a silicone dildo with lube will do", EFF says "don't stick anything up our asses."

I am so stealing your example.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

morgauxo (974071) | about a year ago | (#43472645)

I'm sure you are but we really don't want to know what you are doing tonight.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43475065)

I'm guessing that "up your ass" is the new "explain it to me using a car metaphor".

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478153)

I'm guessing that "up your ass" is the new "explain it to me using a car metaphor".

It's like having a potato in your tailpipe.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43473367)

It's basically one group wants to stick a rebar up your ass, Obama says "no, a silicone dildo with lube will do", EFF says "don't stick anything up our asses."

Not really. One group wants to use the rebar. Obama says "we'll disguise it as a dildo".

We know ever since the Yahoo data release years ago that there is no such thing as "anonymized" data. Removing "personally identifiable information" doesn't work.

So even if Obama's proposed changes were adopted, it's still rebar.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473903)

Yahoo data release? I don't know anything about that.

I do, however, recall the netflix prize, for which they released some "anonymized" data. ...and indeed, what they did seemed reasonable to most everyone. Just replace people's names with a number, and all you got are "this number watched these movies and gave them these ratings." Seems harmless enough, right? Then those security researchers went and figured out who many of the people were anyway.

There is no such thing as anonymized data. There's only data for which you haven't yet discovered a way to exploit.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43475111)

"Yahoo data release? I don't know anything about that."

Back in around 2005-2006, give or take, Yahoo released a large batch of "anonymized" data to the public, as a "public service" and to demonstrate how "benign" that data was.

Boy, were they wrong. It really backfired. In a very short time, people started pulling "innocent" data out of the file and matching it up with names, and inside a day or two there were newspaper articles about how hundreds of identities were very easily pulled out of the data in a very short time, and much more could be had if someone wanted to spend real time on it.

Much like what you report about the Netflix situation, except these weren't even "security researchers", they were just plain old journalists who were curious.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43476539)

Is this what you're talking about?

AOL Search Data Scandal [wikipedia.org]

It sounds similar, but is about AOL rather than Yahoo.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about a year ago | (#43479561)

Yep. Got me. I don't know how my memory changed it to "Yahoo" but there it is.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (3, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43471099)

I can think of a few
- The citizens who own the corporations, or are sufficiently high enough in its organization to make wads of money off it
- The citizens who think POTUS is on the right track, but is approaching it wrong or have issues with the current implementation
- The crazy fuckers who oppose POTUS at every turn because he's black/Arab/has a white grandmother/The Man/Muslim/not Muslim/supports Israel/hates Israel/is from Kenya/is from Hawaii/is getting gray hairs/etc
- The slightly less crazy fuckers who oppose POTUS at every turn because they oppose his general political stance, but don't have the time/effort to pick and choose which specific issues to oppose
- and many more!

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43471263)

To clarify something here, it's easy for people on /. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.

When you say "the citizens own the corporations" you are basically saying the CEO class. They're the ones with the most stock.

I don't think that was the intention here, but the "people own the corporations" argument as a way to say that the corporate system is democratic is a very week argument.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43471291)

week* weak

good f'n morning.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (2)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43471367)

You're right about what I meant. The original poster was asking "what kind of citizen"? and I gave a few examples of them. However, as with the other examples, these are a small (but very vocal) minority of the overall population and in a true democracy would have almost no say in matters. However, there are people that think the big money CEOs shouldn't get any say, effectively denying them their rights as a citizen. I think they should get the same say as any other citizen ("one person, one vote" so to speak). When it comes to matters of economy, they may be more important because of their relative impact but when it comes to what is essentially a civil rights issue, then everybody should be held as an equal because my personal opinion is that civil rights trump economics... a free population is more important than a wealthy population.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (4, Interesting)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43471413)

Absolutely. "One man one vote" is a phrase that comes to my mind a lot these days.

I absolutely don't have a problem with CEOs voicing their opinions. I have a problem with their opinions holding perhaps one million times the weight mine does a private citizen. I don't even have a problem with a CEO opinion holding more weight than mine in certain cases (as experts, especially), but right now the private citizen means nothing. We keep hearing screams about "liberty," but as I read the constitution that's WAY out of line for what they believed liberty to be.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (3)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year ago | (#43471597)

To clarify something here, it's easy for people on /. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.

Do you have a reference for that? I've always heard that the vast majority is held in retirement account trusts, which would be a hell of a lot more than "the 1%", it would include everyone with anything other than SS to retire on.

Eat up your heritige foundation propoganda... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473073)

Through my 401k, I own stock in several amoral multi-nationals. I have just as much control over them as I do the multi-national that employs me. Your argument is a purposeful distraction - basically propaganda for the criminal .001% that rule over everyone.

Re:Eat up your heritige foundation propoganda... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473165)

Through my 401k, I own stock in several amoral multi-nationals. I have just as much control over them as I do the multi-national that employs me. Your argument is a purposeful distraction - basically propaganda for the criminal .001% that rule over everyone.

Then you are nothing but a corporate shill, profiting from the exploitation of slave labor. If you had any integrity you would dump that 401k and put your money elsewhere. Instead you rail against someone for pointing out that you own it, then shift all blame to someone else. Typical indoctrinated self-entitled kid, refusing to take responsibility for you own actions, and blaming your ills on everyone else, while participating in perpetuating the problems.

Re:Eat up your heritige foundation propoganda... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43474803)

Then you are nothing but a corporate shill, profiting from the exploitation of slave labor.

Pretty sure he said he -is- part of the slave labor...

Re:Eat up your heritige foundation propoganda... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43476531)

Then you are nothing but a corporate shill, profiting from the exploitation of slave labor.

Pretty sure he said he -is- part of the slave labor...

Not if he has a 401k. I don't think the children making clothes in Sri Lanka, or the former farmers living in dorms at the Chinese Foxconn factory get perks like that.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

suutar (1860506) | about a year ago | (#43476471)

are those voting shares?

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43474449)

To clarify something here, it's easy for people on /. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.

When you say "the citizens own the corporations" you are basically saying the CEO class. They're the ones with the most stock.

I don't think that was the intention here, but the "people own the corporations" argument as a way to say that the corporate system is democratic is a very week argument.

and a good 70% of all citizens are fools and/or ignorant and/or selfish fucks. Psychopaths rise through the ranks better than most because they tend to be more manipulative. Nuff said.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (4, Insightful)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year ago | (#43471579)

This bill sucks. The supposed "veto threat" is just a way to make it more to his liking. He'll sign it no matter what. We should have learned by now that, in spite of Obama's rhetoric to the contrary, he consistently supports every initiative that supports or helps big corporations that gets to his desk. The only exception I can think of is the Keystone Pipeline, and even with that he claimed it was someone else's decision.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (5, Interesting)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43471309)

This doesn't "oppose" shit anymore than 150 year plus copyrights "protect artists", its about making sure the corps can datamine like crazy and then thanks to those being private businesses the PTBs can simply buy any intel on you they want without any of those pesky warrants.

Lets be honest folks, what we have now isn't even Coke VS Pepsi anymore, what we have is Coke in a bottle VS Coke in a can, because its the same corporate masters buying both sides. this is why you see the supposedly "ultra leftist" (to hear the right tell it) Obama embracing frankly the worst abuses of power of Bush and even expanding them, this is why supposed right wingers like Bush spent like a drunken sailor while in office, its because what we have now is bullshit spectacle for the masses, its as kayfabe as pro wrestling. I mean how can anybody even say we have a left and a right when the left POTUS is as pro big brother as the right or say we have a right when their POTUS blows through as much cash as any left winger.

This is why frankly its up to the geeks to save us, they need to make encryption as simple and easy as pushing a button so all these big brother wannabes get is a big old pile of static.And we nerds need to throw the biggest bitchfits ever, just fucking spam the entire web with messages about this kind of bullshit like we did with SOPA/PIPA because that is the ONLY way we can get this kind of bullshit stopped, voting left or right won't do jack,only by doing what we did with SOPA/PIPA and making sure every politician knows that supporting this shit is a career killer will shit like this die. they are counting on us to get tired, on us to give up and roll over, we need to show them that nerd-rage can last for a VERY long time and get Joe and Jane Average to listen. This is VERY doable as i can tell you I had countless "normals" in my shop asking me about SOPA/PIPA when all the bloggers and web personalities jumped on board, we really need to do that again with this garbage.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43471467)

You're right about that. Control both sides and you control the narrative, the game, all of it. The corporations own both sides of the political spectrum and therefore own the game. It doesn't matter who is in office. We get the same policies just on either blue or red paper. However the color of the paper is not important. Only the words are...

Re:Why, America? Damn. (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | about a year ago | (#43471591)

I mean how can anybody even say we have a left and a right when the left POTUS is as pro big brother as the right or say we have a right when their POTUS blows through as much cash as any left winger.

We do have a left and a right. What you are missing is the 'Up' and 'Down' which represents Authoritarian vs Libertarian.

So you have a Left Authoritarian, and Right Authoritarian.

So you really do get the option between left and right. What you don't get is choice for liberty.

You don't have a left and a right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472135)

You have a left of the median and a right of the median.

Your median is slapped over on the hard right.

Re:You don't have a left and a right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472445)

Your median is slapped over on the hard left.
 
FTFY.
 
The US government is a monster at this point. It over reaches into nearly every area of individual life. It was never meant to reach into any of this area. It was meant to maintain national defense and interstate commerce. That's it.
 
Leftist governments are traditionally the governments that are large and up in everyone's business. That's what we got today.

Re:You don't have a left and a right. (2, Interesting)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43472795)

Your median is slapped over on the hard left.

FTFY.

Leftist governments are traditionally the governments that are large and up in everyone's business. That's what we got today.

This graph of US state senatorial positions [politicalcompass.org] shows the opposite of your above quoted statements. Right-leaning states' senators hold more authoritarian positions, while left-leaning states' senators hold more libertarian positions — though all of those positions are on the right and authoritarian sides of the median axes.

Re:You don't have a left and a right. (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43474591)

I think that's exactly what the OP (Industrial Complex) was pointing out. We have a "left" and a "right" but they all committed to big government and authoritarianism.

Re:You don't have a left and a right. (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year ago | (#43475689)

I think that's exactly what the OP (Industrial Complex) was pointing out. We have a "left" and a "right" but they all committed to big government and authoritarianism.

Yes, but the AC I responded to claimed the US was left-of-median, which isn't true. Anyone can claim anything; my intent was to provide objective data illustrating that the left/right, authoritarian/libertarian spectrum in the US exists within the confines of right-wing authoritarianism (at least as far as elected officials are concerned).

I have a pretty good memory of Slashdot-regulars' general political stances, and it's heartening to see the broad bipartisan support here in opposing many authoritarian policies: increasing domestic surveillance, subversion of due process, drug prohibition, and oppressive security theater, to name a few examples.

Unfortunately, this coming-together to defend civil liberties is not as widespread throughout the US populace as it is here. I think that the populace's support for policy based on the proposer — rather than the proposal — is a good demonstration of why this isn't occurring. That a person would abandon their own principles, though, in favor of petty partisanship boggles my mind.

Re:You don't have a left and a right. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43480345)

But you missed the other point I was talking about which is we can change that just as we got Joe and Jane talking about SOPA/PIPA by having all the little Internet personalities and bloggers making vids and doing stunts to promote awareness.

More and more folks are getting a good chunk of entertainment NOT from the corporate controlled media but from all these little Internet personalities, the Angry Joes and Film Brains of the world so if we get THOSE guys to promote the hell out of making the public aware and spreading the word we CAN change this just as we did with SOPA/PIPA. I mean i had folks that are about as anti-politics as you can get coming into the shop and asking me "What is SOPA/PIPA?" and when I asked them how they heard of it the answer would always be some funny little Internet personality they like to watch was posting links to petitions and urging viewers to write congress.

So we CAN change things, we simply have to think outside the box and avoid the corporate owned mainstream media.

Re:You don't have a left and a right. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43476241)

That is EXACTLY what I was saying, the only "differences" is on kayfabe bullshit that corps don't give a rat's ass about like gays or whether more money will be pissed down a rathole giving to "green" asshole buddies of the POTUS or big oil friends of the POTUS.

But if you follow the money, start looking at just the obvious bribes like SuperPACs? these guys win either way, that is the beauty of it for them. and its not even the top 1%, the ones making out like gods on this kayfabe are the top 0.01%, the kind of guys that can pick up the phone at 3 AM and have the POTUS on the other line in 20 minutes. There are the "too big to fails", those that keep power through multiple presidents, like how Goldman Sachs has had one of their boys running the fed almost every year since it was built and it didn't matter if it was a supposedly "left" or "right" guy in the white house, its THOSE guys that have thrown so much money into the system that no matter who loses they win.

This is also why we no longer have a left wing, you have far right and extreme far right, because more control, more spying, less freedoms, this works out REAL well for them as these laws don't apply to them, just us peasants. But anybody who can call Obama a lefty with a straight face is either clueless to what left is or just trolling as our democratic party would be labeled far right on the rest of the western world's measuring stick but because you can't have fake drama and fighting without 2 people you get the kayfabe we have now. Honestly I could probably take the policies of the last 4 presidents, jumble them up, and just read off the policies and nobody would even be able to tell if I was talking about dems or reps, as its not even two sides of a coin anymore, its just a game of three card monty meant to keep the peasants off the 0.01% while they plunder.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472329)

We do have a left and a right. What you are missing is the 'Up' and 'Down' which represents Authoritarian vs Libertarian.

No you're not missing either one. You're just not paying attention to it, or listening to the media tell you what they are.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

eheldreth (751767) | about a year ago | (#43472903)

Traditionally the political spectrum runs from Left (Anarchy) to Right (Authoritarian). What we have in this country is a mainstream Right leaning party with socialist tenancies and a mainstream Right leaning party with capitalist (or Corporatocracy) leanings. In recent years it has become popular to view political leanings on a two dimensional grid with Left/Right representing the X axis and Socialist/Corporatist representing the Y. Allowing for this both parties are fairly far to the right of the spectrum and one simply leans north on the Y while the other trends south. I used to consider my self a Conservative but after studying some of the actual definitions of political beliefs and looking at the real world interpretation of such I have found I actually have a fairly strong Left leaning and come in fairly well centered on the Y axis. Try this site http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 [politicalcompass.org] to get a better understanding (Note this site actually puts the economic leanings on the X axis).

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

steveg (55825) | about a year ago | (#43476309)

Um. So which one of our political parties is *not* Corporatist?

I seem to have missed that part.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

eheldreth (751767) | about a year ago | (#43476899)

Ha, true. In reality they are but one party still tries to sale itself as being for the people.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43480381)

There isn't one and if you look at the chart on the middle of this page [politicalcompass.org] provided by a previous poster you'll see that BOTH Obama and Romney are practically on top of each other in the hard right authoritarian end of the political spectrum. Its like I said its not even Coke VS Pepsi, its Coke in a can VS Coke in a bottle, same product, just slightly different looking container.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

betterprimate (2679747) | about a year ago | (#43481855)

To correct and expound on GP's post, traditional Left and Right can both be Anarchy or Authoritarian. All political parties in the U.S. swing towards being authoritarian by being far right in terms of Economics trumping Individualistic Freedoms.

The Libertarian movement in the U.S. is also far right and is a bastardization of Libertarian philosophies, so much so that they are not even considered Libertarian as their policies on free enterprise is counter to the core belief of Individual Freedom. "True" Libertarianism, what is now referred to as Left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism, etc. is anti-corporatism because it is against Individualistic Anarchy. Left-Libertarianist are ignorantly seen as socialists, however, like their Right counterparts, they also believe in limited government (hence, they are not socialists).

Left-Libertarianism is also the only successful form of government.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43481049)

We do have a left and a right.

Err, no, you don't. You have two extreme rights. One slightly more so than the other. You really have no political perspective at all, do you? Seriously...

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

tetmohawk (825189) | about a year ago | (#43473263)

Fully agreed.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about a year ago | (#43478293)

...they need to make encryption as simple and easy as pushing a button...

I quite agree, only I'd do away with the button. Always-on encryption is what users need today. This one step would eliminate the most egregious violations of the user's privacy by corporate, governmental, and criminal enterprises.

If it's too late to add always-on encryption to the existing internet infrastructure, then so be it. We'll have to build another, more secure, network. The sooner, the better.

Re:Why, America? Damn. (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#43480407)

The reason why I think it needs to be a button is as we have seen with UPnP something that was made to make life easier can come back to bite us on the ass. as someone who actually has to do troubleshooting of networks when shit breaks i want to have a button I can flip so that when I need to figure out what has gone wrong I can see what its doing. Now if you want to make the button default to on instead of off? i have NO problem with that, but we need to be able to turn it off when we want.

"so this may very well rear its head again" (4, Informative)

Bananatree3 (872975) | about a year ago | (#43471043)

You can count on this issue never going away. For all the corporately-fueled K St. lobbiests lurking in Congress, private citizens have *VERY* few friends. The Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] is one of them, the American Civil Liberties Union [aclu.org] is another. Donations to these two organizations, and others like them are the only way to ensure these watchdog organizations stick around. Without watchdog organizations pouring over every amendment and potential bill we are FUBAR'd. Who else will be watching the watchers?

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (3, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43471329)

I don't count the ACLU as a friend of the private citizen. At least I don't these days.

They are constantly fighting for corporate rights because of supposed slippery-slope effects on everyone's rights. I can't see it that way. Due to the concentration of power corporations have due to their very legal nature I can't see how the rights of a corporation should legally be equal to that of an individual. By doing so you ensure a situation like the one we are in now where a corporation with enough lawyers can steamroll over any individual they want.

The ACLU is not the friend of the private citizen until they step back and say "yeah, corporations deserve rights, but they should be second-tier, below the rights of the individual citizen." Until they do that they are on the side of corporate anarchy, whether they realize it or not.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (0, Flamebait)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year ago | (#43472205)

The ACLU has argued that child pornography is sometimes protected by the first amendment and that the second amendment only protects states' rights to have a national guard.

Fuck them.

Nazis want to rally in a Jewish neighborhood, the ACLU is there.
Klansmen want to march through a black neighborhood, the ACLU is there.
Pedophile gets caught downloading kiddie porn, the ACLU is there.

Someone wants to own a gun to protect his or her family, the ACLU's silence is deafening.

LK

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472361)

Defending free speech means defending free speech that you don't like.

I don't like KKK rallies but I understand our Constitution allows it. What I LOVE is that all the anti-racism protesters come out there and GREATLY outnumber the Klan members.

I wish the Westboro Baptist Church never existed, and they exploit free speech, but even their hate-filled rants are protected. Don't get me wrong, I love it when people fuck with them when they are protesting.

Because we let assholes like those people have free speech, we can also let good people have free speech, like minorities, women, and gays.

The ACLU is far from perfect, and they do a lot of bad stuff, but they do defend free speech in the way the Constitution sees fit.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472421)

aclu didn't take gun cases, yes, partly because of ideology, but partly because of the uncertain precedent. now that there are more pro-gun rulings, they're starting to do more of it. aclu has an interest in winning cases to maintain their rep; this has ups and downs.

i never got the anti-gun thing. it's not like the aclu argued cases against gun ownership, so if that's the problem just give $x to them and $y to the nra. but of course that's not the problem, it's just an excuse (for what i don't know, but it's too ridiculous on its face to be the real cause).

could you cite the child porn thing? they were opposed to the act which would have made virtual child porn equal to real child porn, but that's a very conservative stance, so i assume that's not what you're referring to.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year ago | (#43472771)

In New York vs Ferber, the ACLU advocated that the possession and distribution of child pornography is protected by the first amendment.

Even after the Heller decision, the ACLU stuck to their collective right interpretation of the second amendment.

This is not a group that truly cares about freedom. They only want to use the constitution as a weapon.

LK

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473031)

the server hosting the actual case is down, and i don't trust any of the hysterical, shrieking summaries. it could just be lawyers overzealously arguing a technical point; this happens a lot, it's kind of their job, as odious as it is.

i don't see what's particularly collective about this, for example: http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2010-07-22/news/fl-gun-guy-wins-20100721_1_mr-weinstein-guns-seized

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

dgatwood (11270) | about a year ago | (#43474209)

In New York vs Ferber, the ACLU advocated that the possession and distribution of child pornography is protected by the first amendment.

This is not a group that truly cares about freedom.

To play devil's advocate here, that example strongly suggests that they do care about freedom—the freedom to do what you want as long as no one is provably harmed. The victims in child porn become victims when the pictures are taken, not when the pictures are looked at (with the possible exception of situations where the person possessing it happens to somehow know the victim, but I'd expect that to be exceedingly rare).

And although it should be illegal to sell child pornography (for the same reason that it is generally illegal to profit from a crime), the arguments for laws banning its possession are basically identical to the arguments for prohibition of marijuana possession:

  • That the individual must be protected against any harm from his or her own choice to consume something dubious (pot/kiddie porn).
  • That the consumption may be a gateway towards something worse (meth/child abuse).
  • That being able to jail the user/distributor gives law enforcement greater ability to coerce them into giving up their distributor to eventually get back to the source.

The first argument is dubious for the same reason that bans on violent videogames are dubious. The second argument is even more dubious because it only serves to drive the abuse underground, making it harder to detect. The third argument describes a problem that could be solved more easily with obstruction and/or contempt charges, and with fewer side effects.

From a purely logical perspective, then, anyone against the war on drugs should also be against bans on child porn distribution (except commercial distribution) and possession, and for precisely the same reasons. Anti-possession laws are universally dumb, no matter how evil or heinous you might personally think the thing being possessed is. The only thing they do is satisfy the public's desire for revenge by misdirecting it against someone who played no role in harming the children in the first place.

By contrast, legalizing possession would have many of the same benefits as legalizing pot. For example, by allowing it to be distributed (without profit) freely, child porn traders would take fewer steps to anonymize their trades, which would make it easier to monitor them to ensure that they are not, in fact, harming children. It would reduce the use of child porn mixed with executable code as a vehicle for creating botnets. And so on.

So why do you think that advocating for the legalization of child porn possession makes them anti-freedom?

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43474693)

You're using too much logic here...

You're supposed to think of people preventing people thinking of the children because they are thinking of the children.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43475415)

I agree, we shouldn't have laws against possession.

That way I can legally possess my neighbor.

Well, maybe there should be some laws against possession.

(FTR I agree with you that possession of an item (not a person) shouldn't be, in and of itself, illegal.)

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

dcollins117 (1267462) | about a year ago | (#43478387)

Anti-possession laws are universally dumb, no matter how evil or heinous you might personally think the thing being possessed is.

Anti-possession laws when applied to the so-called "vice" crimes are universally dumb. Using your examples, drugs and sex. In that case I agree with you.

Obviously, I don't want my neighbor to stockpile radioactive materials or nerve gas. Things that can be used to hurt other people I'm OK with being banned.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year ago | (#43479763)

So why do you think that advocating for the legalization of child porn possession makes them anti-freedom?

That's not my argument.

The ACLU is for an expansive interpretation of some parts of the constitution while at the same time arguing for a restricted interpretation of others.

The ACLU is a bunch of hypocritical assholes, pro "freedom" or otherwise.

LK

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43481031)

It seems to me that you are very invested in the right for private citizens to bear arms. That would explain your anger. Given the repercussions of widespread ownership of firearms, as demonstrated repeatedly in the US over a great many years, I think it's actually the case that the hypocritical asshole is you, and not the ACLU.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | about a year ago | (#43481335)

Clearly, you are are free to come to whatever conclusions you wish but I prefer the consequences of widespread firearms ownership to the consequences of widespread firearms prohibition.

In this country, we have thousands of people who are murdered with firearms. In Europe and Asia, we had millions of people who were murdered by their own governments. As much as I prefer it to be zero people murdered, thousands are better than millions.

LK

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472773)

Corporations should not have rights, they should have privileges. Rights are not granted by the government according to our laws, since corporations are creations of said government they should have only what the government can give them.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (4, Insightful)

visualight (468005) | about a year ago | (#43471471)

The people who live in Lansing Michigan are to blame for this. I was just looking at the Mike Rogers video on youtube and wishing he represented my district so I could vote against him.

Then I realized that I can still hate on everyone who lives in Lansing Michigan because Mike Rogers is ultimately *their fault*.

To put it another way, All of us need to hold the people of respective districts responsible for what their congressmen do.

Fuck You Lansing, CISPA is your fault so do something about it. Oh, and fuck Mike Rogers for thinking he's smarter than the average 14 year old.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472727)

The people who live in the USA are to blame for this. I was just looking at the George Bush video on youtube and wishing he represented my country so I could vote against him.

Then I realized that I can still hate on everyone who lives in the USA because George Bush is ultimately *their fault*.

To put it another way, All of us need to hold the people of respective countries responsible for what their presidents do.

Fuck You USA, war in the Middle East is your fault so do something about it. Oh, and fuck George Bush for thinking he's smarter than the average 14 year old.

I changed that for you so you can see what you sound like. Everytime someone mentions Bush, you Americans go on about how he's the fault of the other Americans (+ gerrymandering). But when you're not the one being blamed, it seems you think it's fine to blame everyone in the area.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

asylumx (881307) | about a year ago | (#43474433)

I don't see any issues with your version...

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43475709)

O.P., can't log in from here. *I* don't have any issues with that take either. Responsibility is a heavy responsibility.

Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (1)

PeeAitchPee (712652) | about a year ago | (#43473863)

Please don't let CISPA's other co-sponsor, Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger, off the hook. He is just as responsible for CISPA as Mike Rogers is. Many of us were gerrymandered into Ruppersberger's 2nd District of Maryland last election (thanks Annapolis!) and are terribly ashamed that our new representative is advancing this abortion of a bill for a vote.

So, if I may -- Fuck You Baltimore County, Maryland -- as much as it pains me to say that about the place where I was born and raised, it is well deserved.

No he can't.... (2)

Pyrotech7 (1825500) | about a year ago | (#43471059)

"I do not believe the administration knows how to work with a legislative body," Rep. Rogers said. "We have come a long way on some of their points."

No he cant work with legislative bodies. A good case for when compromise is not always the best course. Yet another way for government to get private information from private companies, never mind private companies sharing amongst themselves. Someday soon the time will come when what you buy is recorded, say you buy viagra. Not only will you start getting offers from condom companies, but your quote for medical insurance will be higher. Who know, maybe that points you out as a risk taker and car insurance will go up.

HIPAA? (1)

Bananatree3 (872975) | about a year ago | (#43471145)

This is a serious question, I don't know the answer. Does HIPAA protect pharmaceutical purchases? If you buy Viagra from (insert international online pharmacy here), that might be a little different. But for a legit online/in-person pharmacy this seems protected info, and there's enough old ladies/gents out there who'd go apeshit on their legislators if their pill-buying habits were being bought/sold like Facebook likes...

Re:HIPAA? (1)

BitZtream (692029) | about a year ago | (#43471345)

Yes, prescription medication information is covered under HIPAA in various ways.

Re:HIPAA? (5, Interesting)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year ago | (#43471787)

This is a serious question, I don't know the answer. Does HIPAA protect pharmaceutical purchases?

I does now. But it won't after the gun control "universal background" check gets passed. There is an explicit exemption in there for all medical providers to share information with the background check system. So if you're prescribed anything from Haldol to Ritalin to Prozac (and any other flavor of SSRI), or even Wellbutrin, you'll be flagged as having a mental illness and unable to purchase a gun, and probably have any you own confiscated. They already do that in New York and California.

It's a good idea, but a bad implementation. It's a sledgehammer approach better implemented by relying on psychiatrists and psychologists evaluations. It will sweep up a lot of veterans that are no danger to anyone but the bad actors on the streets.

Re:HIPAA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478303)

They already do what in NY and California? An SSRI prescription doesn't stop people (at least in CA) from getting a gun.

Re:HIPAA? (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about a year ago | (#43479097)

They already do what in NY and California? An SSRI prescription doesn't stop people (at least in CA) from getting a gun.

It seems that with the new law in New York, they are not only blocked from buying guns, but having their guns confiscated. [thenewamerican.com]

We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (5, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year ago | (#43471089)

We're 41-year-old basement dwellers, you insensitive clod!

Re:We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43471131)

not anymore. I'm 42 now.

Re:We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43475105)

happy birthday!

Re:We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (1)

fibonacci8 (260615) | about a year ago | (#43471181)

And what about the attic dwelling 14-year-olds? #annefrank

Re:We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (3, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43471277)

Anne Frank's diary would have likely been considerably shorter if she had access to Facebook or other social media. The Reich would have probably been monitoring it pretty closely. We've recently seen how the Internet can help revolution in some countries, but none of them have been under an iron grip as tight by a country with the resources of Nazi Germany, in which case the Internet would probably have been used against the people more than helping them.

Re:We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | about a year ago | (#43473381)

You're right. Anne would just have been posting about Justin Bieber.

Re:We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43471479)

She would hopefully be listening to Bieber, along with the rest of the nation, to keep their attention away from what was really happening #uninformedvoter #lowinformationvoter

Why just corporations (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43471183)

Who's going to hold the government accountable? They don't even have to disclose when they lose your personal information. Yeah corporations don't always have your best interests at heart, but neither does the government. It seems like a lot of people misplace their faith in them. You want to protect your personal information? Don't give it out. When I'm at the register and they ask me for my phone number? I tell 'em no. Sometimes I'm not even nice about it. If they press me I tell them I don't have one (which is technically not a lie it just means I don't have one I want them to call me on). Same thing with SS number. You want to do business with me? Do it without my SSN or I'll go somewhere else. Web sites that ask for the CCV is another one. Yeah it helps them cut down on fraud, but it also puts that number in a database somewhere that may be hacked in the future. I'm not going to risk someone running up my bill to mitigate their risk. Don't like it? Fine, don't do business with me. If more people took this stance we'd have better solutions and everyone would be protected. But instead we punt to the government because personal responsibility is hard.

Re:Why just corporations (4, Interesting)

SJHillman (1966756) | about a year ago | (#43471321)

Withholding the information will work for now while this stuff is still in turmoil. However, if it becomes established across all businesses, then where will you go to buy food if no one will sell it to you without your phone number? What about a car? A home or apartment? I'm not so paranoid that I object to giving out a little personal information (like a ZIP code) but I don't like the idea of giving companies information not directly relevant to the business we're doing. If you're shipping me something, I can see why you would need my phone number. If I'm buying it in-store, then you don't need that. Unfortunately, most people will just give whatever information is asked for... I've had people give me their SS# or bank PIN because they misunderstood me when I was asking for something else.

The general masses don't understand that information is the ultimate smart bomb... it can be used to target a single individual with almost no collateral damage and can be launched from anywhere in the world at any time with no warning. The only defense is to protect the information and prevent it from spreading as much as possible.

Everyone knows (2)

codewarren (927270) | about a year ago | (#43471205)

that 14 year old basement dwellers do not have rights and are not really people.

Re:Everyone knows (3)

ebno-10db (1459097) | about a year ago | (#43471237)

14-year-old basement dwellers may be the only Americans left with an appreciation of the Bill of Rights. Maybe that's the age when you learn about the Constitution in detail. I suggest everyone take an annual refresher course.

Re:Everyone knows (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43471293)

[Everyone knows] that 14 year old basement dwellers do not have rights and are not really people.

FINALLY Everyone is thinking of the Children!
They just don't think very highly of them, is all...
Choosy Mom's can't choose Beggars?

Re:Everyone knows (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43471343)

Yup, what an inane example - 14 year old basement dwellers. I, for one, remember what it was like being marginalized as a teenager by "the grown ups who know better" and don't take kindly to this kind of remark.

Re: ``14 year old basement dwellers'' (1)

rnturn (11092) | about a year ago | (#43472515)

What a great idea! Piss off kids who will be voting in a few years. Let's see how well Rogers does with the 18 year old vote in the next election.

Re: ``14 year old basement dwellers'' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43474361)

Yeah because 14 year old kids are all taking notes right now as to whether they'll vote for Rogers or someone else 4 years from now.

Re:Everyone knows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43473489)

Rogers is one of many Dunning/Kruger poster children occupying positions in the Legislative Branch...

Land of the Free* (1, Funny)

EvilSS (557649) | about a year ago | (#43471341)

So I guess "Land of the Free" is now the equivalent of "Unlimited Internet". Guess we'll need to insert a fast-talking legal disclaimer guy into the national anthem now.

Re:Land of the Free* (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43472271)

No, you just need to sing it "Land of the free asterisk, and home of the brave double-asterisk"
Followed by a speed-rapper defining the asterisk and double-asterisk, but even at 120 words per minute it takes three times longer than the actual national anthem.

Perfect 10.0 on the 180 reverse (2)

sirlark (1676276) | about a year ago | (#43471451)

Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable — and not granted immunity —

Like the telecomms weren't granted immunity?

Re:Perfect 10.0 on the 180 reverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43474997)

Somebody mod this up! This president, who now claims "Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable â" and not granted immunity â" for failing to safeguard personal information...", is the same guy who, as a senator in 2008, voted to give the telecoms immunity from prosecution for turning over our information without a warrant. Funny how few people noticed or remember that. That's the day I stopped supporting his candidacy.

Hypocrites don't impress me.

Re:Perfect 10.0 on the 180 reverse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43475795)

Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable — and not granted immunity —

Like the telecomms weren't granted immunity?

No, the way they were held accountable.
--

I call (1)

Creepy (93888) | about a year ago | (#43471939)

The only person that would call opponents "14 year old basement dwellers" are 14 year old basement dwellers. Whoever elected a 14 year old to congress is an idiot.

Congressman, you've been called. Score -5, Troll for you.

Unfortunately (1)

maroberts (15852) | about a year ago | (#43472591)

I don't have a basement to put my soon-to-be 14 year olds in.

Rogers has an excuse. (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43473299)

Republicans are totally out of touch with people. Rogers is a Republican. So he has an excuse for being totally out of touch with people.

Re:Rogers has an excuse. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43475023)

Politicians are totally out of touch with people. Rogers is a politician. So he has an excuse for being totally out of touch with people.

FTFY

How rude! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43474211)

one of the sponsors tweeted that those opposed to the billare basement dwelling fourteen year olds.

How rude!

Arise! Arise, and make your voices heard, basement-dwelling 40 year olds! >:-(

Not authoritarian enough? (1)

moeinvt (851793) | about a year ago | (#43474505)

The president threatened to veto the 2012 NDAA as well. Then, they amended the bill to grant government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without charge trial or access to legal counsel and he signed.

Guess he's holding out for the "Internet kill switch" provision he's been wanting for years.

idiot tweet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43477019)

14-year-olds still live in their bedrooms. You have to be old enough that you should be out of the house before you can move to the basement.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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