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!

Rep. Mike Rogers Dismisses CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeter On the Internet"

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the foot-in-mouth dept.

Government 222

gale the simple writes "Mike Rodgers made a minor splash Tuesday when he decided to liken CISPA opponents to 14-year-old basement dwellers. The EFF, naturally, picked up on this generalization and asked everyone to let the representative know that it is not just the 14-year-olds that care about privacy."

cancel ×

222 comments

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

Hey... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478597)

I resemble that remark!

Re:Hey... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478693)

From the mouth of babes, as they say. Something tells me that fourteen year old tweeters such as yourself know infinitely more about how the web works than this Rogers character. Not as if he cares though, right?

And editors... Fuck it, if you haven't improved after so many mistakes there's just no point in bothering to point them out any more.

Last link is broken (2)

Colin Currie (2900243) | about a year ago | (#43478613)

Title says it all. EFF page says nothing was found.

Re:Last link is broken (5, Informative)

bondsbw (888959) | about a year ago | (#43479483)

I think the summary needs to clarify: this is Michigan representative Mike Rogers, not Alabama representative Mike Rogers.

EFF link broken (4, Informative)

MaxToTheMax (1389399) | about a year ago | (#43478615)

It has an extra lowercase "l" at the end, remove that and it works.

Re:EFF link broken (3, Funny)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year ago | (#43478879)

But CISPA is your PAL, man!

Link to EFF needs fixing (5, Informative)

eksith (2776419) | about a year ago | (#43478617)

Should be leading here [eff.org]

50 something (5, Insightful)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#43478627)

This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.

Re:50 something (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478725)

This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.

Usually, when a politician backs crap like this (and especially when they say really ignorant things like this guy did), a file all about them shows up at their office filled with data found via legal access.

I just have to assume that there is some heavy lobbying pressure on this guy from corporate America - corp America is increasingly dependent on Big Data and they are against anything - anything at all - that will limit their precious data. Through in the whole "national security - stopping the next marathon bomber or the next school shooting" and you have a recipe for more intrusions on our privacy.

It doesn't help that there are millions of US citizens voluntarily giving up their privacy via Facebook.

Re:50 something (3, Interesting)

EzInKy (115248) | about a year ago | (#43478781)

But even the motto of the state he was elected to serve spells it out...."Audemus jura nostra defendere" - We Dare Defend Our Rights, and here he is wanting to surrender everyones to the corporate overlords.

Re:50 something (-1, Flamebait)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43479165)

No one is attacking your rights. Just your privacy. I know people don't like to hear it but their is no Constitutional right to privacy. What privacy you do have is by statute.

Re:50 something (5, Insightful)

chihowa (366380) | about a year ago | (#43479311)

Statements like yours are why Hamilton was so against the Bill of Rights from the beginning. In no way is the purpose of the Constitution to enumerate the rights of the citizens. It's sad to see that he was right.

Re:50 something (5, Insightful)

chihowa (366380) | about a year ago | (#43479325)

From Federalist Papers #84:

I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

Re:50 something (-1)

thaylin (555395) | about a year ago | (#43479465)

I think you just proved his point.

Re:50 something (2)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#43479719)

It falls under the aegis of the Fourth Amendment. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

I, at least, define the methods they would espouse to be invasive and ineffectual. Therefore unreasonable.

If you have no problem living in a panopticon, great. Good for you!

But this sick little subculture of invading EVERYONE'S lives with some vain and vague notion of, SOMEHOW, making people "safe" (when it accomplishes no such thing) needs to die.

Stake through the heart.
Cut off its head.
Burn the remains.
Sow them with lime.

Re:50 something (5, Insightful)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43479529)

No one is attacking your rights. Just your privacy. I know people don't like to hear it but their is no Constitutional right to privacy. What privacy you do have is by statute.

Keep this in mind - in a democracy, anything that is not subject to a law to say otherwise:
1. it is allowed for the citizens
2. it is forbidden for the state/government.

So spare me with the "Constitution doesn't grant you this right" or cease pretending US is a democracy.

(I'll be counting the replies recycling the "by Constitution, US is a republic, not a democracy". I do hope I'll have none to count).

Re:50 something (1)

Chas (5144) | about a year ago | (#43479727)

The US is *not* a democracy.

It's a democratic republic.

Re:50 something (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43479733)

The US is *not* a democracy.

It's a democratic republic.

And a democratic republic is not... well... democratic?
Let me rephrase: in a democratic republic, does one need a statute to grant rights to the one?

Re:50 something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479605)

As many have said, the constitution does not grant citizens' rights. The constitution enumerates the rights which we grant our government. It does also contain a listing of rights which the signers were concerned would be infringed upon called the Bill of Rights. In the Bill of Rights there is a section which states, to paraphrase, that any power not explicitly granted by the constitution to the federal government is held by the states and their citizens collectively.

Re:50 something (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about a year ago | (#43479485)

But even the motto of the state he was elected to serve spells it out...."Audemus jura nostra defendere" - We Dare Defend Our Rights, and here he is wanting to surrender everyones to the corporate overlords.

There's no contradiction... it's only the matter of correctly defining who are "we" and the motto still holds true.

Re:50 something (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479111)

Ditto. 50 years old and more conservative than this statist f**k-tard will ever be.
The GOP should be the natural party of individual (and states') rights, but they keep nominating fascistic shits like this.
I wonder why they're called the stupid party?

Re:50 something (0)

interval1066 (668936) | about a year ago | (#43479267)

Because communistic fucktards was already taken by the other party.

Re:50 something (4, Insightful)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#43479343)

It's just sad. I can remember when the Republicans really were the party of small government (small in budget, small in intrusiveness, except regarding sex where they lost all sanity), and the Democrats really were the anti-censorship, anti-racism party, and the mainstream of both parties was proud of America. WTF happened in 20 years?

Re:50 something (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479639)

I'm 56 Years old, live downstairs but NOT in a basement and Mike Rogers' idiocy can FUCK OFF!!
This will not protect citizens, it will have disastrous Chilling Effect, and make people pawns of the data miners.

Who do you trust more? (5, Insightful)

davydagger (2566757) | about a year ago | (#43478657)

Who do you trust more, really?

Teens in their basement, or slimebag politicians in washington?

At least we know teenagers in their basements aren't taking money from special corporate intrests trying to fuck us all over.

Re:Who do you trust more? (4, Insightful)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43478721)

the basement teen in almost all instances.

The teen in the basement knows more about real life than the Congressional idiot that will only take meeting with people who will contribute to his/her campaign.

Re:Who do you trust more? (4, Interesting)

DragonTHC (208439) | about a year ago | (#43478867)

I find it humorous that the politician can't even insult us properly.

It's either 14 year olds, OR dudes living in their parent's basement.

Nonetheless, privacy is important to me because I'm in a better position to protect my children online as they begin to use the Internet more and more.

Re:can't even insult us properly. (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year ago | (#43478927)

Heh I'll reply to you. Yeah, this one is a pretty bad mis-step.

I won't even use logic because that's too hard for this person. Let's stay at the Pre-logic level that the dev. psychologists say works for children.

Age 14. Really?! SO many things wrong with that age metaphor. Let's try to keep it obvious.

14 year olds can't vote.

So what are they doing, brainwashing their older brothers and sisters?!

Re:can't even insult us properly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479047)

By "this person" are you referring to Mike Rogers or DragonTHC?

Re:can't even insult us properly. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479687)

Age 14. Really?! SO many things wrong with that age metaphor. Let's try to keep it obvious.

14 year olds can't vote.

I think that's the point of the insult: Rep. Mike Rogers was trying to say that the people making anti-CISPA posts on the Internet are immature and irrelevant. In other words, that there is no real opposition to CISPA. This, of course, is absurd, but the problem with his statement is that it is false and ad hominem, not that is it inconsistent.

Re:Who do you trust more? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478941)

Also, many of those basement dwelling 14 year olds will vote in the next election. Just sayin'.

Re:Who do you trust more? (1)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#43479391)

Also, many of those basement dwelling 14 year olds will vote in the next election. Just sayin'.

Although some will be eligible, few will vote. And "Rep." Rogers knows that.

Look at it the other way (4, Insightful)

Cali Thalen (627449) | about a year ago | (#43478661)

My first thought was...after sitting down and discussing it with his 14 year old nephew, it must all have gone over Rodgers' head, and he didn't learn anything. Hey, next time let the kid write the legislation, leave it to the experts.

Re:Look at it the other way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478823)

He probably needed to sit down with his nephew to practice how he would explain his fucked up law to everyone else..

I'm sure eventually the nephew said: "ok, uncle, you're right, it's a good law, now let me get back to playing violent video games, downloading porn, and pirating movies in the basement"

Re:Look at it the other way (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479053)

downloading porn is so 1999. streaming porn is more like it.

Re:Look at it the other way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479911)

One does not exclude another.

Re:Look at it the other way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479147)

Or, more likely, he was bought to defend CISPA.

Ex-FBI Agent Rep. Michael J. Rogers Sponsors CISPA (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478689)

Need you know more?

corporate bubble (2)

MickyTheIdiot (1032226) | about a year ago | (#43478701)

The us congress need less Reps like Rogers. They need people that will actually go outside the corporate bubble.

Re:corporate bubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479423)

Well you sure as hell can't vote them out (that's how they got in in the first place) and anyone trying to give them not-so-subtle clues are labelled "mentally unstable" and sent to prison for terrorism (and yes of course threatening or killing politicians is criminal, diluted poison or otherwise).

It is only going to get worse, there's something called evolutionary pressure and it applies to more than biology. Most people get that or they would be total assholes all the time but the shit that floats to the top obviously doesn't.

I doubt he's wrong. (2)

TheRealDevTrash (2849653) | about a year ago | (#43478735)

But what does it matter how old I am? Is this law bad? Yes.

Re:I doubt he's wrong. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478783)

But what does it matter how old I am? Is this law bad? Yes.

It should not matter. What does matter is that he literally decided to call his opponents children that don't know anything about the world.

I, personally, am mildly insulted.

Re:I doubt he's wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479067)

It's about as insulting as a blind person telling you your clothes are out of style. You don't get mad, you laugh smugly. With ignorance so high, he really insulted himself. Which is why we're all talking about it.

What do they think they're doing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478737)

We need the same backing we had against SOPA for this. They're selling this way too hard towards the common users that we saw fighting with us agains SOPA. This is the wrong approach. The internet should be free, and regulated by those of those who contribute to it, not the government. They don't know what they're talking about in this issue, they use the phrase "tweeter", and all together we can realise that those are not the people who we need to help make the internet a better place. Right now we have more freedom on the internet than ever. The moment they lock us down... http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan

Rogers Whines Like a 14 Year Old (5, Insightful)

Colonel Korn (1258968) | about a year ago | (#43478745)

Honestly, 14 year olds tend not to be remotely aware of the evils of bills like CISPA. In my experience it's the best and brightest segment of society that's united against this nonsense. On the other hand, 14 year olds are quite familiar with answering criticism with a false ad hominem attack.

Re:Rogers Whines Like a 14 Year Old (2)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about a year ago | (#43479177)

OOOOOOOOH SNAP

Speak for yourself, my 14 year old self disagrees (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479571)

Speak for yourself. This 14 year old (OK, not 14, any more, but when I was) was contributing to the ACLU and EFF. More so then than now even and I'm still extremely active (more so now, just cause, well, it's my job, cause, well, I believe the cause is worthy and valuable to society, which includes myself).

Re:Speak for yourself, my 14 year old self disagre (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479699)

That's why he said "tend" dumbass.

Time for a Super PAC (5, Insightful)

tokencode (1952944) | about a year ago | (#43478753)

If you want congressmen to take your opinion seriously, you need to speak in the only language they understand... votes. Someone needs to start a crowd-funded super PAC that specifically targets politically vulnerable candidates who opposed privacy. Start running negative ads in their home districts and you may see a change, but last I checked no one in Washington gives a crap about what is posted on /.

Re:Time for a Super PAC (4, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year ago | (#43479007)

They don't, but chops to you for heading towards a "managed" situation in politics.

It's a weird line they are following - on one hand if they bomb the masses with enough ads, they get their votes. In another way, they have got to be deathly afraid if the masses actually start coordinating votes. I could go on for 3,000 words but I'll stay short in this post. The basic point is, for the first time ever, Social Media can Coordinate votes to counter the advantage politicians have had of close access in the Capitol for a hundred years. Right now there's no platform for it. But so help us when there is, this grand Pres cycle will be a WHOLE NEW game.

14 year olds care about privacy? (4, Insightful)

Areyoukiddingme (1289470) | about a year ago | (#43478865)

14 year olds care about privacy? Really? REALLY? Hello, there's a website we'd like to introduce you to Mr. Congresscritter. It's called Facebook. You should find out what happens there sometime.

Is it just me or has the rate of public officials mouthing off like children increased? Don't these people have any dignity anymore? (That last is a rhetorical question...)

Re:Mouthing Off (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | about a year ago | (#43479029)

It's not just you, but I wouldn't slander the Kids!
(Have we forgotten that meme that fast, that all the cyber bills are For The Kids?!)

They are mouthing off, but not kids - some kind of weird way they think the "mood is right" and they can get away with it.

Any 3 of these 10 stories would have been career enders Back In The Day.

But there's some kind of magic going on - they can say *absolutely anything* and still keep their elected posts.

Re:14 year olds care about privacy? (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43479181)

Dignity in Congress? Been watching the news lately?

Re:14 year olds care about privacy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479323)

Lately? The ignorance of US history^W^W world history here is astonishing.

The one who writes slashpolls? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | about a year ago | (#43478913)

Rep. Mike Rogers == Insensitive Clod

Re:The one who writes slashpolls? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478997)

I like this game. Lets see if I can do this correctly: Pedophiles vote for Mike Rodgers. Yes, he likes feet.

Dear Mike Rodgers (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43478915)

You have just funded your opposition, and if I didn't consider it a near-certainty that you were in a contrived electoral district that would re-elect you for anything short of being caught with a dead 14 year old in your bed, that would spell your doom.

As it stands, there's always some hope.

Typical... (4, Funny)

Kittenman (971447) | about a year ago | (#43478919)

Republicans doing sweeping generalizations...

They always do that sort of thing

pause....

Don't play their game! (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | about a year ago | (#43479031)

If you have not yet figured it out, there is no line between Democrat and Republican any longer. They are all on the same team, and hint: it is not your team. Keep thinking they differ and the same will continue. They want us bickering over rep. Vs dem. and black vs white, and atheist vs religious , or anything else that keeps you from watching what they are doing.

Re:Don't play their game! (3, Informative)

Scared Rabbit (1526125) | about a year ago | (#43479155)

*WOOSH*

Stereotypes and Vacuums (3, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | about a year ago | (#43478931)

Unfortunately, the man has something of a point. There are a lot of 14-year-old basement dwellers in the anti-CISPA crowd, and a lot of people who just want to get their entertainment without paying for it. In short, a significant number of the people who oppose CISPA are doing it for the wrong reasons. CISPA is wrong, but so are they.

Those of us who care about the real issues might do well to disassociate ourselves from the creepers and the pirates. Even they need protection, but let's not kid ourselves, that's more a matter of logistics than principle: protection is meaningless if it doesn't protect everyone, and so they get a pass in order to make it work at all. Their voices in this debate only harm the side they fight for. But this presents a problem: how the heck would a community like this disassociate itself from its less savory members?

Re:Stereotypes and Vacuums (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479589)

You don't disassociate them. You embrace them. You point out that 14-year-old basement dwellers have a lot of reason to be anti-CISPA. People treat Facebook privacy settings as if they *meant* something. The second the government can simply buy at its pleasure "private" information, how many creeps in government will be using it to look up naked pictures on Facebook? And possibly of said 14-year-old basement dwellers.

The real point then, is, that (1) it's certainly a lot more creepy that vague, unknown--yet powerful--government officials want to spy on you, all at the behest of money that's not theirs--or without money at all possibly, but that'll only make the deficit morons happy and (2) it's pretty clearly piracy to have a 3rd party (Facebook) selling or giving away personal information that's likely copyrighted by you.

Seriously. I would much rather join the creepers and the pirates than the fuckers in Washington or the fucker in Michigan who somehow think it's a good thing to even further intermingle business and government. I mean, at what point do I get to point out the Nazis?

Re:Stereotypes and Vacuums (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479597)

You can't just ignore them because its convenient. Speaking as someone who (sadly) funds these organizations (and I'm talking about the MPAA indirectly through PAYING for movie tickets, etc) and violate certain laws (due to DRM and non-free software dependencies) I can assure you it has nothing to do with money. I make more than most people and have no qualms about throwing a dollar or two at entertainment. But... I DON'T have cable TV, Satalite, Netflix, etc explicitly because they dependent on DRM and non-free software. I'm not going to contribute to companies/products that put me in that uncomfortable position. I will on the other hand contribute handsomely to the EFF, ACLU, and other organizations (and free software projects, and privacy enhancing projects like Tor) on the other hand.

So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA (2)

Grimbleton (1034446) | about a year ago | (#43478943)

It's a shame he only cares about one part of the bill of rights.

Re:So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479131)

Name the politician that doesn't only care about one part of the bill or rights.

Re:So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA (2)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43479211)

My favorite is the 10th Amendment which is absolutely, totally ignored by Congress.

Re:So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479331)

To be fair, without that part the rest of it is just words on paper.

Re:So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479439)

To be fair, without that part the rest of it is just words on paper.

Even with that part, the rest is just words on paper.

No matter how optimistic you may be about the ability of armed civilians to go Red Dawn against the federal government, or about a sufficient portion of the military throwing in with the citizenry rather than following orders*, that's still no check to ensure the constitution or any of its amendments are followed. It's a check on government doing anything perceived by a sufficient fraction of the citizenry as oppressive -- some constitutionally illegal acts (e.g. all the unconstitutional laws Congress has passed so far, including the ones struck down and the ones courts uphold by twisting "interstate commerce" beyond recognition) will not suffice to spark rebellion, and it's quite conceivable that a constitutionally legal, but unjust (or more to the point, perceived as unjust) act could spark rebellion.

*And frankly, while I know I sound skeptical, I'd not care to bet on notionally superior government forces over a poorly-armed but widely-supported popular movement -- I'm sure I don't need to give examples here.

Re:So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA (2)

Alex Vulpes (2836855) | about a year ago | (#43479457)

When the internet is outlawed, only outlaws will have the internet.

Yes, a free internet can be dangerous in the wrong hands -- but of all people, a gun rights advocate should understand why that's not grounds for banning/controlling/censoring it.

Bullshit all Around (2, Insightful)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about a year ago | (#43478949)

So are we going to have this song and dance every year?
1. Politicians introduce legislation against common people's interests.
2. Initial concerns over privacy/abuse of power are voiced.
3. Companies of all sorts voice support, and how much it is needed.
4. Apparently clueless politicians make statements minimizing critics as somehow insignificant.
5. Huge outrage swells up from 'the people'
6. Politicians and Companies back-pedal
7. Last clueless politician stays the course.
8. Bill dies.
9. ???
10. Rince and Repeat

Re:Bullshit all Around (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479005)

Not every year, only until step #5 becomes a routine, annoying chore for anyone still paying attention. Step #4 is a way of testing the waters to see if attrition has played its course.

Re:Bullshit all Around (1)

CanadianMacFan (1900244) | about a year ago | (#43479079)

While you keep voting the same type of people into office then I would yes you are going to keep having this song and dance every year.

Re:Bullshit all Around (1)

Great Big Bird (1751616) | about a year ago | (#43479521)

I only watch from the sidelines. I am not American.

Re:Bullshit all Around (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479667)

As am I, but a huge segment of the internet flows through or originates in the US. Oppressive measures there affect people *everywhere*, either directly or via setting a precedent.

Re:Bullshit all Around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479691)

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, because:
The two most common things in the Universe are Hydrogen and stupidity.

check my ID ... (1)

glebovitz (202712) | about a year ago | (#43478979)

Because I believe I am substantially older than 14 years old and I oppose the CISPA.

Re:check my ID ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479299)

But what about the basement?

Obama has threatened to veto it (3, Insightful)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about a year ago | (#43478985)

I'm fairly sure the President of the USA is not a 14 year old tweeter.

Re:Obama has threatened to veto it (0)

geek (5680) | about a year ago | (#43479069)

Re:Obama has threatened to veto it (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#43479101)

The Washington Times? You have got to be kidding.

Re:Obama has threatened to veto it (1, Offtopic)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43479301)

I actually watched that speech. It seemed like the President was pissed off about something or other that failed to pass. I was glad to see that my congressman actually listened to me and the others in his district instead of President Obama. I don't know if the President is aware of it or not but these congressmen have to run for office every once in a while and if they piss off the people in their district they don't get to keep that nice cushy job. I saw where one of his fellow Democrats in Congress was giving one of the President's staff hell the other day in a meeting about how badly the Obamacare thing is going. He expressed to her his displeasure and anger about their ineptitude in getting the program going. Upon further reading I discovered that this guy was a key player in helping get Obamacare passed and it seems his constituents remember this and are just now becoming aware of all those things that Nancy (we have to pass it to know what's in it) Pelosi was talking about. Now that they find they bought a bottle of snake oil they seem to be on track to rid themselves of this guy and he's feeling a little panicky. If only more people understood the repercussions of these attempts to give Corporations this kind of power over our data then Congress would fear to tread here as well.

Re:Obama has threatened to veto it (2)

Rob the Bold (788862) | about a year ago | (#43479407)

The Washington Times? You have got to be kidding.

Shhh . . . He thinks it's the same as the Post.

Re:Obama has threatened to veto it (0)

GrumpySteen (1250194) | about a year ago | (#43479195)

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/04/17/17797311-nra-gets-caught-lying-again [msnbc.com]

The NRA does tell lies... just like every other political action group in the US including those who support gun control legislation. Calling them out on it hardly makes you a 14 year old.

Re:Obama has threatened to veto it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479339)

In the case you linked to, the NRA was not lying. Cops want a lot of gun violence to increase their business. The NRA also wants violence for the same reason. Cops and the NRA win big when people get shot. They love it. That's why 80% of cops are anti-safety. The NRA is correct in this case.

The real question is why are you telling a lie? Is it because you want more gun violence?

Surprise! (1)

memnock (466995) | about a year ago | (#43479001)

A congress-critter who doesn't understand legislation's effect on technology. Will wonders never cease!

Re:Surprise! (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43479317)

I get that. What I don't get is why the staff they pay for with our tax money doesn't seem to have a clue either.

and now you know how 2A supporters feel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479037)

dennigrated

Companies' stance (1)

Kwyj1b0 (2757125) | about a year ago | (#43479075)

He claims that Silicon Valley CEO's support this bill. Well, let's see. Google never took a stance, Facebook and Microsoft rescinded their support, while AT&T and Verizon (big surprise), IBM, Intel and McAfee support it (didn't Intel buy McAfee?)

So no, Silicon Valley CEO's do NOT all support it - and even if they did, it isn't a ringing endorsement against privacy concerns. After all, what does the CEO know about the technical ramifications? In many cases (esp. for long established companies), they are business school graduates. They know that they are now off the hook for breaking privacy contracts. Gee, I'm surprised that some companies don't support it!

And for the love of God, can it be made illegal to give cool sounding names to acts and bills that sound all "PATRIOT-ic"? Not that I expect the politician who writes the bills is dumb enough to believe that they are rally helping their country (instead of their political backers), but it stops silly soundbites like "My opponent voted against the CyberSecurity bill".

Re:Companies' stance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479167)

He claims that Silicon Valley CEO's support this bill.

The CEO at my (small, innovative, startup) Silicon Valley company most assuredly does NOT support fascism.

From what I can tell... (2)

rusty0101 (565565) | about a year ago | (#43479117)

...Mike isn't going to be able to go after the 14 year old tweeter for a TOS violation under CFAA, as the TOS at Twitter do not seem to have a minimum age requirement that he would be violating.

As someone on the far side of 40 from the described 14 year old, I have to say that I appreciate that 14 year olds who are opposed to CISPA are aware that this will have an affect on their privacy, and are being vocal about it. It suggests that civic responsibility is recognized as part of one's personal sense of duty to our youth, which suggests that at least someone is paying attention to their school classes, which may be counter to what Mike expects of any of the public, much less the 14 year olds out there. It also suggests that a 14 year old is more aware of the issues involved than this sitting representative. While I think that's a positive reflection on our youth, I think it's a very poor reflection on at least one of our representatives in Congress.

Re:From what I can tell... (1)

amiga3D (567632) | about a year ago | (#43479335)

I wonder if this dickhead knows that these 14 year olds will be old enough to vote in 4 more years? He'll probably needs someone to do the math for him.

Do we all know how the House works? (1)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about a year ago | (#43479171)

Look, this guy may be an out of touch jackass, but what he should have said was "These people are not my constituents, and they did not elect me". Look people, I don't call and harass elected representatives from YOUR state and district. He is accountable first to his constituents (the people who voted for him to be precise), THEN to his state, THEN to the nation. remember, his vote on a bill is supposed to be his district's vote. and let's be honest, we don't know how many of them feel the way we do. Call YOUR representatives in Congress, and let THEM know how you feel about the bill. That is the appropriate and fair thing to do in this case.

Nothing new here (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#43479229)

We already know Republicans are totally out of touch. Nothing new here. Move along.

Mike Rogers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43479247)

Who?

Re:Mike Rogers... (1)

Culture20 (968837) | about a year ago | (#43479337)

Who?

That's how it should be. When you hear the name of a representative or senator that you recognize, that person has been in office for a while. They should be ousted and brought back only after a term hiatus.

Adults care about privacy too (2)

servognome (738846) | about a year ago | (#43479283)

I'm 45 and it is still not okay for my parents to come into the basement without knocking first!

I'm getting really tired of this shit (2)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#43479381)

Every year or more often, it seems, we have yet another jaw-droppingly fascist and Orwellian proposition to fight.

Some wrinkly old dipshit psychopath completely disconnected from reality, at the behest of his (or her, but mostly his) corporate cronies, makes some astoundingly malevolent proposition to sacrifice the rights of everyone but himself and selected entitled individuals. We then have to step up and expend an enormous amount of time and energy battling to retain the rights we should be able to take for granted. Time and energy that could otherwise be used constructively.

If this becomes a big enough threat, the response needs to be alike to that of SOPA. Even after the people won, they rubbed it in: practically half the web went dark and DC went batshit. It's been little more than a year since then, have they already forgotten or has the dark lens of pure evil blinded them that much?

How Republicans Think (3, Informative)

Required Snark (1702878) | about a year ago | (#43479677)

Rodgers is far from the only Republican who thinks that citizens should shut up and do as they are told.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/17/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html [politicalwire.com]

"I am the senator. You are the citizen. You need to be quiet."

-- North Carolina State Senator Tommy Tucker (R), quoted by the Raleigh News and Observer, to Goldsboro News-Argus publisher Hal Tanner who was opposing legislation to change public notice requirements for local government.

Who's 14? (2)

betterprimate (2679747) | about a year ago | (#43479695)

Sounds like something a 14-year-old would say.
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>