×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

CISPA 3.0: the Senate's New Bill As Bad As Ever

Soulskill posted about 7 months ago | from the i-blame-easter dept.

Government 132

Daniel_Stuckey writes: "CISPA is back for a third time—it has lost the 'P,' but it's just as bad for civil liberties as ever. The Senate Intelligence Committee is considering a new cybersecurity bill that contains many of the provisions that civil liberties groups hated about the Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). Most notably, under the proposed bill companies could not be sued for incorrectly sharing too much customer information with the federal government, and broad law enforcement sharing could allow for the creation of backdoor wiretaps. The bill, called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014, was written by Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and is currently circulating around the committee right now but has not yet been introduced. Right now, the bill is only a 'discussion draft,' and the committee is still looking to make revisions to the bill before it is officially introduced."

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

Sorry, Mr. Becket (4, Funny)

fche (36607) | about 7 months ago | (#46872505)

Will no one rid me of this turbulent senator?

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (0)

MoFoQ (584566) | about 7 months ago | (#46872765)

I've never voted for her since I don't share her views.

the funny thing is...with regards to the NSA spying stuff, neither do her constituents.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872835)

I've never voted for her since I don't share her views.

Sharing.

There's that word again.

"I am working with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) on bipartisan legislation to facilitate the sharing of cyber related information among companies and with the government and to provide protection from liability,"

I see it a lot in marketingspeak too. "This is how we share your private information with our marketing affiliates..."

Why is it when individuals share the secrets of governments and corporations amongst themselves, it's "stealing" or "leaking," but when governments and corporations steal and resell our secrets to each other, it's called "sharing?"

Orwell would be proud in more ways than one. Difi doubleplusgood duckspeak blackwhite doublethink.

They learned it from us? (4, Funny)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46873309)

I don't steal mp3's, I share them.

Not saying it's right, just that it's so.

Re:They learned it from us? (3, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46874371)

I don't steal mp3's, I share them. Not saying it's right, just that it's so.

No, it isn't.

Copying and downloading have NEVER been "theft", according to U.S. law.

Further, you want to see how the copyright owners treat the content creators? [techdirt.com]

Before you start making arguments about ethics and karma, maybe you should make sure you're on the right side of said argument.

Re:They learned it from us? (2)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46875233)

It wasn't an argument, merely an observation. One based on my personal experiences and opinions. Yours may differ - but I still feel that they can define what they do with the information we give them as sharing. More so than sharing music online - in the case of corporations and the government, there's definitely an understanding between both parties involved. To be honest, when I've shared music, I doubt seriously that the original source was ever specifically aware of my existence. When corporations and the government share data, they do so (hopefully) with the clear understanding that it is taking place.

Incidentally, I know your opinions and ethics differ from mine, but I'm not interested in arguing. Feel free to state a differing opinion, but don't expect me to suddenly change mine. I may end up on the losing side of this debate - but I'm not so sure it'll be the wrong one.

Re:They learned it from us? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46876879)

Sorry, WE are the People and WE define it in the end.
THEY are incapable of running their own pathetic lives, let alone ours. Lets just drop the illusions and delusions about whose role is what.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873321)

xIAA here citizen. Sharing doubleplusungood. Selling doubleplusgood. Big Brother is watching. We have always been at war with <strikeout>Eurasia</strikeout> our customers.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873337)

I've never voted for her since I don't share her views.

the funny thing is...with regards to the NSA spying stuff, neither do her constituents.

Uh, that is not exactly something that should be considered comedic.

As a Representative of her constituents, mind telling me just what in the FUCK she thinks she's doing?

As per the very definition of her job title and function, this should be sitting in the do-not-give-a-shit pile on her desk, and instead it's being rammed up our ass, led by someone we never asked to do so?

It really sucks that mass ignorance has taken over this badly. I don't even know why we bother teaching US history anymore. It's fiction.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46874415)

As a Representative of her constituents, mind telling me just what in the FUCK she thinks she's doing?

I would like to know too. But let me ask you: when was the last time your elected representatives actually represented you?

I am in contact with my Senator and Congresspeople regularly. Usually (especially in the case of the Democrats) in response I get a form letter telling me thanks for my interest but this is why they're going to do whatever the hell they want to do anyway.

I strongly suggest starting at the bottom and working up. Your State legislature is much more likely to listen to reason. Once you get them whipped into shape, start working on the Federal.

(Actually, work on them both. But concentrate on the bottom first, because that's the way it's going to change.)

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874923)

This! If you don't get the answers you believe you should be getting, start petitioning to get other people on ballots and get the shit out of the pool. I realize this is hard work, but you won't force change by sitting and whining about how bad it is.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (1)

pslytely psycho (1699190) | about 7 months ago | (#46873839)

"I've never voted for her since I don't share her views."

Funny that, as even she doesn't seem to share her views....

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/03/dianne-feinstein-calls-out-the-cia-for-spying-on-the-senate.html

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (2)

Spritzer (950539) | about 7 months ago | (#46872845)

I've never voted for Tax-me Shameless(RINO-GA), but thankfully, he's retiring. I guess this is one of his last acts of idiocy before we get to replace him.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (1)

gmhowell (26755) | about 7 months ago | (#46873153)

I've never voted for Tax-me Shameless(RINO-GA), but thankfully, he's retiring. I guess this is one of his last acts of idiocy before we get to replace him.

He has to guarantee himself a nice consulting or executive gig when he leaves office. (See also: Chris Dodd)

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (4, Insightful)

BiIl_the_Engineer (3618863) | about 7 months ago | (#46873241)

There are certainly a lot of RINOs and DINOs. The problem with terms like these is that they make it seem as if the parties aren't filled with these scumbags, but they are; the parties themselves are evil. This isn't just a few people; it's the entire parties.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (0, Flamebait)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46874499)

The problem with terms like these is that they make it seem as if the parties aren't filled with these scumbags, but they are; the parties themselves are evil. This isn't just a few people; it's the entire parties.

Read George Washington's Farewell Address [earlyamerica.com] .

Despite what they teach kids in Elementary School, The United States is not a "2-Party System". It wasn't created that way and hasn't been that way since. There have always been more than 2 active parties, and while there have usually been 2 "main" parties, they haven't always been the same 2 parties.

Political parties, for the most part, are bullshit. They're little more than gangs made large. While most democracies may have them, I have yet to see any argument that they've actually, in the long run, benefitted anybody.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 7 months ago | (#46874563)

"... yet to see any argument" should have been "... yet to see any convincing argument."

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874941)

The rhetoric of "If you don't vote for D or R you are wasting your vote." has been part of mass media for decades. Your point is correct, but propaganda has power. Especially when kids in school are not being taught about the founding of our country. In fact, if you immigrate to the US one of the questions asked is the two names of our parties in the democratic process. Brainwashing is horrible, but very common.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (2, Informative)

erichill (583191) | about 7 months ago | (#46873025)

I'd vote for a viable alternative in a heartbeat. Not only is she somehow beholden to the state security apparatus, she also does whatever Big Content wants. She's definitely in with, if not one of, the oligarchs.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 7 months ago | (#46873417)

She's also one of those people who believe that there should be no CCW permits...

Except her CCW permit, of course.

She thinks people like her having guns is perfectly fine, not so much the riffraff.

Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46876855)

If we could only give California to Mexico, we could solve so many domestic problems....

Most laws are enacted to legalize current practice (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872509)

So in a sense, it's 5 past 12.

KILL IT WITH FIRE! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872521)

Version 3.0, 4.0, infinity, it must be stopped!!!!

Let's try an experiment. (3, Interesting)

PortHaven (242123) | about 7 months ago | (#46872551)

On May 5th, 9pm EST....let's all think of Diane Fienstein dying of a natural cause. And see if thoughts actually influence the universe.

Re:Let's try an experiment. (2, Interesting)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 7 months ago | (#46872631)

May 5th, 9pm EST, I will be praying to God to deliver justice upon her and people like her. Let Him decide her fate.

Re:Let's try an experiment. (-1, Flamebait)

Nyder (754090) | about 7 months ago | (#46873219)

May 5th, 9pm EST, I will be praying to God to deliver justice upon her and people like her. Let Him decide her fate.

God doesn't exist, so praying to it doesn't do any good.

Re:Let's try an experiment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873235)

It's as valid as hoping to influence the universe through will alone (i.e. not at all, but hey...)

You've proved that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46875707)

"God doesn't exist, so praying to it doesn't do any good."

I just love it whan some idiot posts something like this... it SOUNDS so intellectual and sciencey and all that jazz... except of course that the statement is simply an unproven assertion no more valid than any religious assertion.

Of course the REAL kicker to the stupid claim is that you probably do not actually believe it. Let's see:

You probably assert that everything started from nothing, for no particular reason, in a "Big Bang" and that all the universe is simply a mechanical ordering of the debris from that explosion, with all life being simply the evolved results of some random electric charge hitting some primordial ooze. Fine. That's the materialistic view that science (being content to only focus on things it can observe and measure, and therefore intentionally and properly blinding itself to any alternate discussions) currently supports. I'm all for science doing what science does - studying what it CAN study and limiting its claims to what fits within those bounds. I have however never met anybody who lives as though he believes this to be the ultimate "truth" of the reality we occupy.

Beginning with that materialistic world-view, you get no rational origin for morality or ethics (beyond something like "whatever feels good is good, as long as I can get away with it" or "whatever advances evolution is good"). Unfortunately for you, evolution is an unguided mechanical scheme with no principles or values so there's no such thing as "good" or "bad" mutation or "more-advanced" or "less-advanced" life forms (any step "forward" may not be "better"). You have no anchor point for terms like "good" or "bad" (in either the "moral" sense or the qualitative sense). There's no reason to care for children since there's no reason to care about the fate of any descendents (the moment you die, you become nothing and therefore know nothing and care about nothing - so caring about those things while you live only becomes a form of irrational self-delusion that does not even "advance" evolution or existence (which also do not matter since there is no point to the whole universe)). It does not even matter if your descendants are hyper-intelligent humans, or primitive devolved ape-like creatures... the universe does not care.

In point of fact, in a purely materialistic universe, there's no "value" to life at all - a planet is no "better" or "worse" if it's a barren rock or a lush tropical world covered in life - eventually all the energy will run-down and the universe will be a cold, dead, expanded place and NOTHING any human ever did will matter one little bit and to pretend otherwise now (to make you feel better) is just self-delusion. Do you "love" somebody? Why? Just use them and throw them away (or dine on them). Do you hate somebody? Why bother? If he's in your way, just eliminate him, there's no need to waste a moment's energy hating him. In a materialistic universe, love or hate is only a delusion... and it cannot even be "meant" to exist for some other purpose (like to trick you into reproducing and protecting your offspring) given that this would imply some sort of design or purpose which cannot exist. Indeed, evolution and life itself would only be meaningless accidents in the universe you apparently think you believe in. Actually, there's no reason to even try to live a little longer in your universe - it's not cosmically significant if you do, and everybody you know will eventually die (forgetting that you ever existed in the process). You might try to claim that your presence is part of a long evolutionary chain that leads to some bright distant future for some descendents .... but that too is irrational: you'll never know them, they'll never know you, and they too will eventually die-off without ever having had a reason to exist anyway. Nothing you do has permanence or "matters" in the long-run, and the same is true fore everybody else and all the generations of descendants.

Silly person. You probably have not killed yourself yet because you delude yourself into thinking there's some reason to keep living. Why? You'll die and be forgotten eventually. You might think delaying death a while gives you more time to have some pleasure before you go, but it provides an equal opportunity for more pain, and given that death is inevitable and all your life's experiences wink-out the moment you do... what's the point? The total amount of pain or pleasure you experienced will be forgotten the moment you die, so you might as well just get it over with. You materialists love to paint religious people as the irrational ones, but truthfully it is you guys who are the MOST delusional; you guys claim there IS no point and then you justify actions that indicate you belive there IS a point, by claiming that you know your justifications are irrational but that they're hard-wired into you to delude you into behaving in some fashion. If there is no God, then all forms of "spirituality" and emotion are just silly delusion, including any expressions that you think evolution provides as a tool to advance its pointless biochemical march to ultimate oblivion.

A wise man once summed-up where your beliefs lead thus:

"Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die"

Re:You've proved that? (1)

someoneOtherThanMe (1387847) | about 7 months ago | (#46875907)

tl;dr

Just this:
<quote>Beginning with that materialistic world-view, you get no rational origin for morality or ethics</quote>
If we all treat each other nicely, everybody is happier for it. Therefore I must treat others nicely. I don't need to fear gods, cops, or parents.

Re:Let's try an experiment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872751)

Your move, Die-ane Feinstein

Re:Let's try an experiment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872819)

Why wait that long?

Re:Let's try an experiment. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 7 months ago | (#46872943)

Alarm set.

See you in the collective unconscious.

Biased much? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872967)

I noticed you left out Saxby Chambliss.

Re:Biased much? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 months ago | (#46873171)

He does have a pretty cool name.

My anagram generator comes up with, "Scab Ax Limbs Shy".

Re:Biased much? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873249)

Not biased, just smart enough to know that there's no way there's a real person named Saxby Chambliss

Re:Let's try an experiment. (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 7 months ago | (#46873433)

Or, instead, here's a thought: go find out if your senator is on the Senate Intelligence Committee [wikipedia.org] . If so, call them and tell them you don't want the bill to get out of committee. Explain why. Extra credit: go read TFA so that you know why before calling. But if you don't want to do that, you can always just tell the staffer that you don't like the bill. Make sure you don't identify it as "CISPA" since that's not its current name.

Why didn't I think of that (1)

Mephistophocles (930357) | about 7 months ago | (#46874699)

Oh, sure, that'll work. Those nice senators are always SO ready to listen to people's phone calls. I'm sure they just sit around all day hoping that someone will call them and tell them what to do, because they just get so much pleasure out of serving the people. I mean, they just put so MUCH importance on the will of the people. Guess that's why their approval rating is so gosh-darn high.

Re:Why didn't I think of that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874955)

So the answer is do nothing? Wholly dumbass Batman!

Re:Why didn't I think of that (1)

mellon (7048) | about 7 months ago | (#46875469)

What do you think killed the last few iterations of this clunker? What killed SOPA and PIPA? Massive public outcry. They don't care all that much about the will of the people, but phone calls? Those they pay attention to, if enough come in. The glare of the spotlight makes them self-conscious.

Eventually it goes through (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872555)

They will simply continue to refluff the bill and push it on us again and again until it passes.

The US government is a corrupt oligarchy and needs to be torn down.

Re:Eventually it goes through (2)

imatter (2749965) | about 7 months ago | (#46872667)

I have to imagine that the real reason they didn't pass before was because they weren't evil enough. I agree though, they will keep coming until one passes.

Re:Eventually it goes through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872737)

Indeed.

This aspect of the system needs to somehow go away. Public energy to fight bad laws gradually wanes, and as said, eventually the bill will pass as the public becomes apathetic and the opponents become burnt out.

No idea what a law to prevent this would look like, or how it would be enforced, or how one would prevent abuse, but there has to be a way to get rid of this brute-force approach to law making.

Re:Eventually it goes through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874985)

there has to be a way to get rid of this brute-force approach to law making.

Indeed there is: Dragging people like Diane Feinstein out of their homes in the middle of the night, beating them up, hanging them by the neck from the nearest stout tree or lamppost, videotaping the whole thing, and putting it on the Internet, to serve as a warning to others who would follow in their footsteps.

These people will never stop while they still draw breath.

Re:Eventually it goes through (2)

crunchygranola (1954152) | about 7 months ago | (#46872951)

They will simply continue to refluff the bill and push it on us again and again until it passes.

The US government is a corrupt oligarchy and needs to be torn down.

Yep. Much like the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act", which was designed to make bankruptcy relief (used commonly by corporations to escape debt) virtually inaccessible to consumers. It was proposed in 1997 and rejected year after year until finally it passed in 2005. What the corporations and political establishment want, they will get - sooner or later.

Re:Eventually it goes through (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873715)

Feinstein is such a dedicated fluffer

Saxby Chambliss & Dianne Feinstein (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872557)

http://media.salon.com/2013/03/dianne_feinstein1.jpg
http://www4.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Saxby+Chambliss+Senate+Democrats+Speak+Media+SiIb_0fZH9cl.jpg

These 2 ugly zionists are controlling the future of the internet. How much do you suppose they know on how the actual internet works?

Won't these dumb cunts just peel over and die, so intelligent bright engineers can shape the future of the internet? Zionism is no place for the internet.

Surprise! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872565)

Oh, look, Feinstein is once again taking action to fuck over the populace while positioning herself (and friends) in the elite ruling class.

Isn't that shocking?

Re:Surprise! (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#46872807)

And these people fancy themselves on the level of founding fathers in that they know, just know, they are capable of editing the first and second amendments because Modernity i.e. they get in the senators' political way, I mean FER DA PEEPUL!!!1!11

Re:Surprise! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873079)

Oh, look, people in positions of authority are once again taking action to fuck over the populace while positioning themselves (and friends) in the elite ruling class.

yawn.

we already knew this, didn't we? is this news to you? this isn't about any one person, its about our system that is broken. replace one pawn with another and if the system is the same, the results are the same.

When will this end (4, Funny)

litehacksaur111 (2895607) | about 7 months ago | (#46872597)

I think it would be nice if congress went on recess forever instead of returning to enact shit like this.

Re:When will this end (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872925)

I'd like all the slashdot wenies to join the 173rd Airborne now in the Baltics and maybe you wouldn't be worried if the NSA knows you called a pizza delivery shop last week.

Re:When will this end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873083)

Oh, right, I forgot, only those in 1h airforce are allowed to be disappointed that the government of the nation that prides itself in being free is, in fact, just just as shitty as any other and rife with corruption.

Oh, what's that? You're just a shill? Ah, that would make more sense. Hope you're getting paid well to betray the very same country you've been deluded to think you're protecting.

Re:When will this end (2)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 7 months ago | (#46873283)

What the hell are you doing there? What is your purpose, soldier?

My guess you are just making more people hate us.

Re:When will this end (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46875339)

My bet his purpose there is to root on Putin. "Orders from the Commander in Chief, gentlemen: 'Three cheers for Russian cultural hegemony!' Hip hip!"
"Hooray!"
"Hip hip!"
"Hooray!"
"Hip hip!"
"Hooray!"
"Great, now let's get back to dismantling all of our defenses. Because now that everyone loves us because of President Obama, we don't need them any more."

Re:When will this end (1)

geekmux (1040042) | about 7 months ago | (#46873381)

I think it would be nice if congress went on recess forever instead of returning to enact shit like this.

Wow. I never imagined such a utopia until you mentioned it here.

Just imagine all the Rights we might get to keep...

Obviously (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872625)

This is all due to your legal bribing you americans call "lobbying" that sh*t like this keep coming back.

Re:Obviously (1)

Kuroji (990107) | about 7 months ago | (#46872739)

Oh please, Mr. Anonymous, share with us your wisdom as to how we can get someone who is a viable option to remove these lobbying problems from our government. Tell me who we can elect that has the means to run a successful campaign without accepting lobbying money and who will be an incorruptible politician!

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872833)

Avoid voting for lawyers?

Re:Obviously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872883)

You act like we have a choice. Only those that are already rich and powerful (such as lawyers) are allowed to run in the race.

Me and Jimmy Carter (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873127)

Me, except they would build a wall around me, just like they did Jimmy Carter.

We only need a single law that can act like a wedge to start breaking open this cesspool we call government.

Start with a real whisteblower law.

Re:Me and Jimmy Carter (1)

Kuroji (990107) | about 7 months ago | (#46875923)

I'd be happy to. But the people who are up there making these laws are the people who are trying to force through CISPA for the third or fourth time now.

We can't make any laws like this until we get someone good in there. We can't get someone good in there until we start breaking it open. We can't start breaking it open until we can pass laws like this.

Re:Me and Jimmy Carter (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | about 7 months ago | (#46876579)

Does your state have a ballot iniative process? Put forward an initiative that the people vote on instead of the politicians!

Once idea would be to try to pass legislation that limited the salaries of politicians (including the income that they could recieve as gifts) and their family members too (definitely spouses) for time during office and for the next 10 years. You want to be a politcian? Fine, but you have to live like a grad student or a Peace Corps worker to do it.

Eternal Vigilance (5, Interesting)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 7 months ago | (#46872709)

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

We need to adopt similar structures and systems. To me, the EFF is a good rallying point, so I urge you to give all the support you can. I say, without irony, "Think of your children."

Re:Eternal Vigilance (4, Funny)

BiIl_the_Engineer (3618863) | about 7 months ago | (#46872729)

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 7 months ago | (#46873253)

True dat. By my definition "arms" includes everything from bare knuckles to thermonuclear devices. Also, "bear" means you have to carry it yourself.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

tragedy (27079) | about 7 months ago | (#46875101)

Does your definition of "carry it yourself" allow for powered exoskeletons or cybernetic limbs?

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | about 7 months ago | (#46876591)

Exoskeletons no, because the arms would be bearing you and we don't have the right to be borne by arms. Cybernetic arms (as in upper torso appendages) yes, but not legs or feet unless you walk on your hands.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 7 months ago | (#46877299)

Is weapons-bearing the same a child-bearing?

Re:Eternal Vigilance (2)

stoploss (2842505) | about 7 months ago | (#46873549)

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

It's not for nothing that the NRA is sometimes referred to as "Negotiate Rights Away". That's why years ago I chose to avoid the compromise-loving, surrender monkey NRA and joined GOA [gunowners.org] instead.

However, the NRA did a decent job helping to protect our rights after Newton, so perhaps they have finally grown a spine.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

swillden (191260) | about 7 months ago | (#46873805)

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.

Not only that, they actually helped write some of the gun control bills. But that's in the past and the NRA of the last decade or so has caught on to the ideas of eternal vigilance and incrementalism (pushing your view inch by inch, always taking as much as you can get, but not refusing just because it's not all you want).

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873009)

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

The influence of industry dollars? Sorry, I don't think there are any privacy manufacturers.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873455)

If you would do a little bit of research into the subject of the NRA's funding instead of regurgitating the Brady Campaign's rhetoric you would be surprised to learn that the only a small amount of the NRA's funding comes from gun manufacturers. A simple google search will tell you the NRA raises about half of their money each year with membership fees and they also rely heavily on gun store customers for fundraising. Many gun stores participate in the round up program (started by MidwayUSA) where the cashier asks you if you would like to round up your purchase to the nearest dollar and give the change to the NRA.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

swillden (191260) | about 7 months ago | (#46873857)

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

The influence of industry dollars? Sorry, I don't think there are any privacy manufacturers.

In 2011, the NRA raised over $200M from individual contributors. Between 2005 and 2012, the NRA received $15M from gun manufacturers, which averages to a little over $2M per year.

This means that the industry funds approximately 1% of the NRA; the other 99% comes from its membership.

Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek. [businessweek.com]

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | about 7 months ago | (#46876593)

Officially, sure - but I'm sure NRA leaders go on "hunting retreats" in moutain resorts funded by industry leaders and get all kinds of unofficial bribes. "Where is the proof?", you ask. I respond to this by adding an extra layer of foil to my hat.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 7 months ago | (#46873553)

Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.

And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters. It's like a man of sartorial elegance who refuses a haircut, and, distracted by the wonder of his hair, gets stabbed in the stomach by the barber. Then he wonders why, why didn't his right to refuse a haircut protect him from fatal abdominal wounds?

The fact of the matter is, liberal numbers of personal firearms and the right to carry those firearms wherever is just window dressing. It's sartorial nonsense as far as protecting liberty goes. After a moments thought, it's obvious why - shooting someone is illegal. If you shoot a public official, the legality of your gun and you carrying that gun is irrelevant. There is no way for you to exercise your right to a gun in a way that protects the erosion of the central liberties.

Instead, a great deal of effort is expended in protecting the right to carry a gun (window dressing) which provides people with a false sense of security, and means that the reaction to actual acts which take away liberties is muted.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (2)

swillden (191260) | about 7 months ago | (#46873935)

And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters.

Examples? I see no reason we have to pick and choose which rights to protect.

It's sartorial nonsense as far as protecting liberty goes. After a moments thought, it's obvious why - shooting someone is illegal. If you shoot a public official, the legality of your gun and you carrying that gun is irrelevant. There is no way for you to exercise your right to a gun in a way that protects the erosion of the central liberties.

You're conflating two different uses of the right. One is defense of the lives of self and others. I carry a handgun on a daily basis, but have no intention of every shooting a public official (unless that official happens to be illegally and imminently threatening someone's life and that's the only way I can stop it -- but that would be a legally justifiable shooting). For defense against tyranny my little 9mm (or .380 pocket pistol) is useless. My rifles, however, are not.

As for the expected riposte about how semi-automatic rifles are also useless against machine guns, cannon, attack aircraft, helicopters, tanks, JDAMs and nuclear weapons other than to say that if you think rifles aren't effective against them you need to (a) study the history of guerrilla warfare and (b) think about the political aspects of armed resistance and how the members of the police and armed forces are likely to respond to being asked to fire upon their countrymen. If necessary, consult with a few policemen and soldiers to clarify any uncertainty you may have about (b).

The reason I carry a handgun is the same reason police officers carry a handgun, for self-defense. Handguns are defensive weapons. Rifles are offensive weapons, which is why they're carried by soldiers. Oh, and before you tell me I have no idea what I'm talking about, I should probably also mention I'm a former police officer and a former soldier and a current (part-time) firearms instructor.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

KeensMustard (655606) | about 7 months ago | (#46876601)

And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters.

Examples? I see no reason we have to pick and choose which rights to protect.

Unimportant rights frequently must give way to essential rights. For instance, my right to be safe and secure in my own home (as guaranteed by the UNCHR) overrides your right to carry a gun. So you may not carry your gun into my house, or, even (thankfully) into my country. Security and liberty is essential - the right to pack heat, though it makes you feel like a big man, is not.

As to specific examples as to how the NRA and other ideologues are eroding your basic, essential rights, refer to my previous comment. Essentially:

People forget that rights are often exercised at the expense of other rights. Really, the right to carry a gun is like glass beads - the tyrants who offer it to you do so knowing that by doing so, they are offering something worthless in exchange for something of real value, rights you would exercise if you did not think that your gun afforded you protections which it does not. Gun holders live in a haze of delusion. They think they are secure and at liberty, and because of this delusion, do not act on incremental erosion of fundamental rights. Thus, tyranny is enacted.

You're conflating two different uses of the right. One is defense of the lives of self and others.

We (the others) are not looking to you for protection, and you aren't the protector. You are the danger. We have a fundamental right to be free of you.

I carry a handgun on a daily basis, but have no intention of every shooting a public official (unless that official happens to be illegally and imminently threatening someone's life and that's the only way I can stop it -- but that would be a legally justifiable shooting). For defense against tyranny my little 9mm (or .380 pocket pistol) is useless. My rifles, however, are not.

You are deluded. If your rifle is a defence against tyranny, why are you living in tyranny?

As for the expected riposte about how semi-automatic rifles are also useless against machine guns, cannon, attack aircraft, helicopters, tanks, JDAMs and nuclear weapons other than to say that if you think rifles aren't effective against them you need to (a) study the history of guerrilla warfare

People who point out that hunting rifles are useless against trained marines, A10 Warthogs and Tomahawk missiles, drones and the like are speaking from a position of knowledge on the subject of how recent rebellions have borne out.

As an example, every successful armed revolution since the 1980s has relied on AK 47s and rocket launchers (both of which are in abundance). Not a hunting rifle in sight. And in general, peaceful revolutions are much more successful (Romania, Latvia, East Germany) than armed rebellions (Kosovo, Croatia, Lybia, Syria, Egypt), and the latter always, always, rely on military style weapons, which, fortunately or otherwise, can be readily obtained from black market suppliers. There is no way you or your rifle can compete with the weapons available to the LRA or the Syrians - weapons these people obtained without reference to the government they are rebelling against.

We don't live in the 18th century anymore.

(b) think about the political aspects of armed resistance and how the members of the police and armed forces are likely to respond to being asked to fire upon their countrymen. If necessary, consult with a few policemen and soldiers to clarify any uncertainty you may have about (b).

I did - they indicated that if fired upon by you or your team, they would have no compunction in firing back. Fair enough, I would too in their position, regardless of my thoughts on the politics of the government. Of course, if there was a peaceful means to bring about change, they would happily do so, as would I and the other 99% of the population that won't support your armed uprising. Which I guess is another way in which you and other armed ideologues support and uphold tyranny, by effectively quashing any meaningful move toward true democracy by ensuring that no meaningful (i.e. peaceful) action can be taken.

So thanks for that.

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | about 7 months ago | (#46876633)

So I'm not a police officer or a weapons expert. However it seems to me handguns are not a defensive technology. Their primary purpose is to kill someone. A bulletproof vest I would agree is a defensive technology. But I guess as a culture we have gotten used to doublespeak with terms such as "peacekeeper missile" so your use of the language is not unusual.

As far as I know, police officers carry handguns as an offensive technology to attack dangerous criminals. They use bullet proof vests to protect against bullet attacks.
http://www.merriam-webster.com... [merriam-webster.com]

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 7 months ago | (#46873923)

No. The NRA is intended to look like they're trying to preserve the 2nd Amendment; they're actually yet another front for the fascists controlling both sides of the debate.

For an actual gun-rights organization, check out the GOA (Gun Owners of America)...

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (895364) | about 7 months ago | (#46874719)

I'm intrigued. What's the main difference, in your opinion, between GOA and NRA?

Re:Eternal Vigilance (1)

Type44Q (1233630) | about 7 months ago | (#46875065)

Sasaki-san, NRA wa uso, des-yo: The GOA is grassroots and the NRA is astroturf...

That's what the jerks at the GAO claim (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46876179)

Answer this question: Where were the GOA when Democrats were murdering blacks in the south and passing "gun control" laws to keep them disarmed? It was the NRA (founded in 1871 shortly after the civil war) that helped black men in the south to arm themselves [pbs.org] to defend themselves and their families from the Klan [old-yankee.com] . Oh, I KNOW that the democrats who run politifact don't like this and have tried hard to debunk this stuff (go there and read their "debunking"). Politifact attacks a specific claim that the NRA was founded by religious people to help blacks (and then finding no evidence either way on the religiosity claim or the purpose-of-founding claim, pronounces the whole concept "preposterous" - an unsubstantiated judgement call in itself) The politifact crew appears to hope that nobody notices they have no answer to the actual meat of the matter: that it's a historical fact that post-slavery Democrats (both in and out of the Klan) implented the so-called "black codes" in the south which included bans on black people owning guns - and the further fact that those Democrats formed posse-like groups and went around grabbing guns from blacks, and the NRA was on the side of blacks having the right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA gets most of its money, grassroots support (and voters who vote) from individual American gun owners NOT a few gun makers. GOA can keep pretending to be the top 2nd Amendment edvocates, but they seem (to me) to spend as much time going after the NRA as after the gun grabbers - NOT an effective strategy.

A couple historical notes for those who have been brainwashed about the whole Republican vs Democrat thing in reguards to the Klan, and black American gun rights:

"What is the President's plan? Is it to leave them to the Black Codes? Is it to call them free, thereby exasperating the late masters, and then suffer those masters unchecked to forbid them to own property, to bear arms, to testify, and to enjoy any of the rights of freedom?" - Harper's Weekly, 14 Apr 1866

"The significant fact in all this lawlessness and terror is that it is chiefly political. The masked blow of the Ku-Klux always falls upon some loyal man, black or white, and always upon a Republican. Democrats are unharmed. It is not a terror for those who attempted to destroy the government during the war, but for those who sustained it. The conclusion is irresistible that it is an organization of Democrats. This fact is made still more unquestionable by the denials and sneers of Northern Democrats. They call it rawhead and bloody-bones, a bugaboo of scared radicals, and a device invented to authorize military coercion of Democratic districts. But if every victim in the Southern States who is taken from his home and scourged, or mangled, or murdered were a Democrat instead of a Republican, how the land would ring with the cry that a radical Administration abandoned innocent citizens to the tender mercies of savages!" - Harper's Weekly, 4 Nov 1871

Once again (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46872949)

Another "I am not a crook" politician wants the law to turn you all into honest serfs. Be just like her, but without a voice or a choice, or innocent until proven guilty.

Look on the bright side (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873027)

At least it isn't fast tracked and hidden or part of official state secrets that can't be asked about even by people who can ask about them.

Keep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873161)

Throwing that shit at the wall. Eventually it will stick.

Re:Keep (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874183)

It's what monkeys do best

whatever haven't to rioting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873213)

When we are continually faced with things like this, year in and year out?

Posting as ac because I don't have an account.

Re:whatever haven't to rioting... (3)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46873293)

In the old days, rioters were young active people who cared deeply about their country, their government and their world.

Looked at the average internet user lately? Hell, let's go above average - looked at the average /. user lately? I don't know about the rest of you, but it'll damned near take an act of G*D to get me to put down the mouse (well, an act of G*D or needing to refill my bowl of chips so I can fill my bowel with chips).

Just sayin'. Give 'em bread and circuses, they'll pipe down quickly enough.

Re:whatever haven't to rioting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874217)

The internet is a tyrant's wet dream.

Re:whatever haven't to rioting... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874477)

And when they get around to taking the internet down? Well, everyone will be too wimpy to do anything about it.

I hate to say this, but... (1)

mmell (832646) | about 7 months ago | (#46875211)

They'll never take the internet down. If Karl Marx famously said "Religion is the opiate of the masses", I'm afraid the internet makes heroin look like a nice cup of warm milk.

My email to my Congress Critter. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873507)

Subject: CISPA version 3.0 - Also known as Feinstien's CISA

Right now, Senator Feinstien (D-CA) and Sen. Chambliss (R-GA) are currently circulating around a "discussion draft" of a bill called "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014." This is just as bad for civil liberties as the original CISPA - the Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act - and I would appreciate it, assuming that this bill actually makes it out of comittee, if you were to vote against it. Please remember that every vote you make influences our civil rights, and give or denies political currency to those who wish to curtail them. This bill will attract national and international attention from those people, both allies and enemies of the United States, who wish to justify the suppression of the rights of others. If, by allowing this bill to pass, we create an environment where neither the Bill of Rights or the Constitution are respected in the digital realm, what is to prevent future politicians from pointing at CISA and saying "Oh.. look, these politicians did it here, so we can get away with doing worse here" in the physical realm. CISA basically brings the concepts of "guilt by association," "wiretaps everywhere," "constructive prosecution," and "ubiquitous permanent surveillance" from NSA's Big Data (Facebook, Twitter, etc) wish-list to actuality. The security, privacy, and rights of future generations of American, and likely the world's, citizens are in your hands. Please be as vigilant in defending our rights as you are with yours.

Government by the rich, for the rich (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873749)

Some of you apparently don't understand how things really are.

The US government is set up for the benefit of a tiny number
of wealthy people. All the rest of us are along for the ride and
we get milked like a cow.

No pretense of protection this time (2)

Culture20 (968837) | about 7 months ago | (#46873791)

They must be feeling pretty secure if they don't need to pretend they're protecting us.

New CISA written bySen. Feinstein (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46873817)

Maybe she's just phishing for love bites!

Bipartisanship.. I think it's wonderful (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46874107)

We should be grateful that republicans and democrats come together in our time of need to provide a *safe and secure society*.

Again America? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874249)

You guys need more government power/control over information and the internet (in your country) in general like I need a hole in my head. Why is this constantly being brought up for serious consideration?

You don't get people debating the merits/demerits of laws against murder or rape being brought up every 6 months, with the real possibility of such laws being abolished. Why do you have to keep bringing this issue to the fore when it's blatantly obvious that it does almost no-one in your country any good.

If people are arguing that there's a problem with copyright infringement, then why not debate abolishing copyright law. This would certainly fix the problem and has far less burdensome drawbacks (indeed, in my book, there are no drawbacks).

Someone melt the witch already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46874777)

This is getting tiresome.

Does anyone remember...? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46875241)

There was a time - back in the 1960's it was - when liberals stood for individual rights, goodness, decency, doing the right thing, trying to strike a balance...all that shit. Nowadays they are just Fascists teaching themselves to be Nazis.

Thank you, US (4, Interesting)

johanw (1001493) | about 7 months ago | (#46876363)

For destroying your own cloud industry and giving companies in other countries a better market. I hear already commercials each morning on the radio when I drive to work about a local Dutch company (KPN) advertizing their cloud because no forieghn governments have access to it.

Cisco and Juniper will be pleased too when they find that more customers move to Huawei. At least the Chinese are not interested in "regime changes" in other countries.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?