Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet United States Your Rights Online

Why CISPA Is a Really Bad Bill 142

Posted by Soulskill
from the must-be-the-comic-sans-font dept.
We've heard recently of CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a bill currently making its way through Congress that many are calling the latest incarnation of SOPA. Reader SolKeshNaranek points out an article at Techdirt explaining exactly why this bill is bad, and how its backers are trying to deflect criticism by using language that's different and rather vague. Quoting: "The bill defines 'cybersecurity systems' and 'cyber threat information' as anything to do with protecting a network from: '(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.' It's easy to see how that definition could be interpreted to include things that go way beyond network security — specifically, copyright policing systems at virtually any point along a network could easily qualify."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Why CISPA Is a Really Bad Bill

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @06:42PM (#39638493)

    You know what's worse? Some normal people actually support it. They don't even care about collateral damage. They want the so-called "criminals" stopped no matter what. Basically, as long as the copyright infringers are punished, it doesn't matter to them how many innocent people are also unfairly punished (sometimes having their internet shut off, for instance) or accused.

    Some people just love collective punishment. Makes me sick.

  • Re:Why? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by shentino (1139071) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:43PM (#39639043)

    It's not just that the bad ones make it, it's that the good ones don't.

    Those "reasons" have a lot to do with the corporate run media among others making sure not to let anyone in that would derail the gravy train.

  • Re:Why? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pwizard2 (920421) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:52PM (#39639131)

    to take the devil's advocate/opposite view: if you can kick someone out of office instantly (or nearly) then won't they all be just living for the short term and never long? isn't this even worse than what we have now?

    Lots of politicians are already taking bribes and thinking in the short term. (that's why stuff like this happens) They are also stashing away favors and other goodies for the long term to ensure that someone will give them a job on some company board in the future. Like others said, they only pretend to care about us during election time. Immediately after that, we are effectively powerless again until the next election. If I call or write my grievances to a politician, they will just give me a politely worded "fuck you" response if I even get one at all.

    If you fuck up badly enough on your job, you will probably get fired on the spot. If you fuck up enough times, you will eventually get fired. If you steal from your job or use company resources for your own gain, you will probably get fired if caught. Politicians steal from us all the time and we have no way to stop them. They fuck up all the time or even actively work against us and their incompetence and greed makes everyone suffer. Politicians don't have to live with that fear and they can do a lot more damage to society than practically everyone else. Not having a fail-safe system in place to remove them if they step out of line is absolutely insane. Getting one warning before being sacked is more than generous for those in public office. Finding a temporary replacement to serve out the remainder of the term is fairly simple.

"Well, social relevance is a schtick, like mysteries, social relevance, science fiction..." -- Art Spiegelman

Working...