Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @06:39PM (#39638459)

    Why must we have overbearing, obsequious legislators whose only goals seem to be to annoy, obfuscate, and make dirty money? The power to expel a Congressman should extend to anyone in the US with at least a given number of supporters.

    ____________
    Please.

    • 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.

    • by trout007 (975317)

      What are the requirements and restrictions on running for Congress?

      • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:00PM (#39638681)

        Requirement: A million dollars.
        Disqualification: Openly admitting that you don't believe in fairy tales.

        • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by trout007 (975317) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @08:06PM (#39639243)

          Good points.

          Also you can't be a federal employee and run for partisan public office. I guess politicians don't want people that actually know how their policies work competing with them.

          • Exactly how many federal employees do you know that have a million dollars to blow on a political campaign?

            • by Thing 1 (178996)
              That's not the point. The point is that the rules benefit the system. Not the people.
        • Fairy Tales ... Like "We're from the government and we're here to help"?

          Or "This High Speed Rail project will only cost 38 Billion"?

          Or "Republicans want you to get pregnant, have cancer, and eat puppies"?

          Or "Democrats want you to smoke pot, have gay sex and molest children"?

          The problem is, lots of people want to believe in fairy tales, including people who claim they don't. People are not rational, including the ones that claim to be. Get over it.

          • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @08:38PM (#39639489)

            Fairy Tales, aka sky daddies.

            you don't *have* to be christian (in the public's eye) but it sure helps. a lot.

            otoh, if you openly admit you don't believe in sky daddies and the like, you'll never get anywhere in american public office. (heck, even in business, its a show-stopper).

            also, if you appear too intelligent, that's a major turn-off to the american voting public. it makes me ashamed of my own country, when I think of that, but we all know about the anti-intellectualism that is on the rise.

            • by trout007 (975317)

              It seems to me the anti-intellectual feelings only come about when a politician says since they are smarter than you they are going to force you to live like they want.

              Take salt for example. Probably a good idea to limit the intake. But I don't want someone forcing businesses not to use it.

            • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Archangel Michael (180766) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @08:52PM (#39639575) Journal

              Yeah, i've seen that kind of thing, and I was avoiding it on purpose. Because, most people who pledge to never vote for a "Christian" or any other person of faith, will do exactly that come Nov. this year. Many of those will vote for Obama, and do so gladly because ... well Obama is their kind of person of faith.

              I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

              Me, I'm not a "Christian". I am a Libertarian, and I don't have a problem with people of faith (or lack their of) politically. My point, Atheists will mock religious people and how they vote, but then often vote for exactly the person they just mocked (like Obama). They compromise their own values in doing so.

              Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?

              • by Cyberax (705495)

                >I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

                What are the alternatives? Even Ron-let's-eat-children-Paul stands firmly behind banning abortions. On the state level, obviously. God forbid they are banned on the Federal level.

              • by Ksevio (865461)
                I'd love for their to be more atheist candidates, however, the religion of a candidate ranks pretty low on my list of qualifications.
              • 1- People can have faith and not be bigots. You don't seem to make a difference between an Obama christian and a Santorum christian ? Or, to stay on the supposedly same side of the spectrum, a Reagan christian and a Santorum christian ?

                2- There's a wide gap between being an atheist, and insisting on a atheist president.

                3- as a libertarian, which libertarian candidate will you vote for this coming election ? Or will you "compromise your values", too ? Or give up and not vote at all ?

                4- I'm not sure libertari

              • by sFurbo (1361249)
                I think you have gotten this the wrong way around. In USA, quite a large proportion of the voting public claims they will not vote for a candidate simply because the candidate is atheist (the number is significantly higher than the corresponding number for Muslims). I haven't seen any numbers for the proportion of voters who would never vote for a Christian, but I don't think anybody would claim that they are significant, given the proportion of the American public who are Christians. In general, atheists d
              • Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Eraesr (1629799) on Wednesday April 11, 2012 @03:03AM (#39641517) Homepage
                The problem in the US is that people can either vote for Obama or vote for the republican alternative. It has little to do with being an atheist and (hypocritically) voting for the Christian guy. It's mostly just a choice between the bad Christian guy or the worse Christian guy. So unless you really don't care (and abstain your vote altogether), you'll end up voting for the least bad guy just to prevent the worst guy from getting into office.

                Here in the Netherlands, where I live, we have a great diversity of parties. Some of those have a strong religious background, others haven't got that at all. It doesn't always make it easier to get things done if a multitude of parties are involved, but at least there's a much broader choice for the voters.
              • Yeah, i've seen that kind of thing, and I was avoiding it on purpose. Because, most people who pledge to never vote for a "Christian" or any other person of faith, will do exactly that come Nov. this year. Many of those will vote for Obama, and do so gladly because ... well Obama is their kind of person of faith.

                I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

                Me, I'm not a "Christian". I am a Libertarian, and I don't have a problem with people of faith (or lack their of) politically. My point, Atheists will mock religious people and how they vote, but then often vote for exactly the person they just mocked (like Obama). They compromise their own values in doing so.

                Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?

                To expand on your point... I have not believed in magical, invisible flying friends since I was about seven years old. That said, what choices do I or anyone else have? There sure aren't any admitted atheists on the ballot. So do I vote for the social justice candidate Obama, who wants to share the wealth or the whacked out Mormon candidate who not only believes in Flying Friends but believes he is destined to become one. The only other choice is to abstain and not vote at all. That leaves the choice entire

        • Requirement: A million dollars.
          Disqualification: Openly admitting that you don't believe in fairy tales.

          It'll likely cost more than a million dollars to successfully run for congress. In 2010, the average successful campaign for a house seat cost nearly 1.5 million. For the senate it was 9 million. ( data from: http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/stats.php?display=A&type=W&cycle=2010 [opensecrets.org] )

        • by Ihmhi (1206036)

          Disqualification: Openly admitting you believe in Muslim fairy tales instead of Christian ones.

    • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pwizard2 (920421) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @06:55PM (#39638643)
      I agree. Having to wait until an election to get rid of a politician is ridiculous. The system is set up to exploit people's stupidity and forgetfulness. The politicians allegedly represent us, so we should have the power to fire them at any time, preferably in the middle of a hot-button issue like SOPA. A simple petition with X number of signatures would be a good way to do it.
      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Informative)

        by jxander (2605655) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:19PM (#39638847)

        Problem is: with whom do we replace them?

        For every Congressman you could hypothetically shitcan at a moment's notice, there are a dozen more equally corrupt politicians at the state level ready to take their place. And for every Governor, Mayor etc that gets the axe (or gets promoted into a recently vacated congressional seat) there will always be a Secretary of State, greasy lawyer, corrupt CEO, Community Organizer, or some guy named Moonbeam.

        The whole process is rotten to the core, and attracts like minded people into it's ranks. I see two possible outcomes, (1) some paradigm will shift and the process will slowly gravitate back towards honesty and intelligence with law-makers genuinely giving a crap about their constituents... or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get ... interesting.

        • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by shentino (1139071) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:22PM (#39638891)

          Maybe if we could shitcan them on the spot, then the bad ones won't bother running.

          Biggest reason they are corrupt as they are right now is that they have no reason to fear the voters. All they have to do is lie through their teeth during campaign season, then once they're safely in office and the only ones who can get rid of them are their fellow politicians, the wolves can safely take off their wool cloaks.

          • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:35PM (#39638995)

            one step forward would be: remove money from the equation.

            SERIOUSLY police the income of the bastards. don't allow them to live any better than they were before taking public office. and the same for afterwards! I'm serious about this; the money IS the corruption.

            I fully believe there are people who do good things because they believe its the 'right thing to do'. but those people never make it to office (for lots of reasons). and the ones who are in office are the sociopathic types (generally, its true, with few exceptions).

            remove all profit motive and ensure that even after office, there won't be any funny business. yes, that's hard to implement and the details are hard. but I bet it would take the 'bad element' out of our government, our police, our courts and we'd be able to restore trust in our 'leaders' again.

            "he was playin' real good. for free."

            there's none of that left in public office. that's the problem. they are all in it for the power, money, influence. remove that motive and you filter out all the badies. and then things will improve.

            • 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:4, Insightful)

              by Chewbacon (797801) on Wednesday April 11, 2012 @08:30AM (#39643149)
              I'm not so clear on exactly how they get to vote for their own salary adjustments. I wish I could do that at work! But go up to your congressman and say: hey, I want to pass a bill to allow the people to vote for your salaries. It won't work. "Yeah, constituent, let me get right on that after we fix the economy, healthcare, and this little energy situation."
              • by shentino (1139071)

                Well, only congress can appropriate money out of the treasury, and the treasury pays the salary of government employees, even congress people.

            • by Terrasque (796014)

              Are you kidding?

              "Here's a new, beautiful 18 year old secretary for you. To help you in your important work. She's up for any work task! *nudge nudge, wink wink*

              Oh, no worries, we'll of course pay for her salary.
              Signed MPAA.

              PS: Are boys more your thing, maybe? Want to babysit these two kids for us next week?"

              or "Here's a bag of white entertainment products for you, sir!"

              Money is only important for what it can buy. Remove money, and they'll just get given the perks directly. And unless you put all of them under 24/7 surveillance, and put the ones doing surveillance under surveillance... Then you WILL have corruption.

          • by jxander (2605655)

            You know, now that I think about it ... that just might work. Maybe make it a 2/3 majority requirement. If any politician's approval rating gets below ~33%, and you get X number of petition signatures for their removal... hold a "special election" and kick em out

            I think it answers GratefulNet's question too: Money

            Any turd politician who can run a good campaign for a few months would show their true colors in office, get the boot, and be out the umpteen millions they spent on campaigning. Big busines

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward

              The answer is to get rid of FPPS voting, which ensures that two nearly equally corrupt parties bubble to the top. Just about any other voting system gives a better way to get rid of corruption.

        • by sjames (1099)

          Perhaps if the people have the option to issue fines when they throw the bums out. To make things fair, the fines may go up to the total amount they spent when running for office. They will be barred from holding any political office until they pay off the fine.

        • The whole process is rotten to the core,

          You mean the "whole process" whereby we actually have a say in who our leaders are?

          As opposed to what alternative process? The one where we have a benevolent dictator for life?

          • by shentino (1139071)

            If you can find a dictator that actually manages to stay benevolent for life, I'd take it over an elected pack of corrupt bureaucrats any day.

            But since there's no such thing as a benevolent politician, I'll settle for a pack of infighting thugs that keep each other from making any progress.

        • by pclminion (145572)
          Why must they be replaced? "Having nobody in office is better than having YOU in office" is a powerful message. And honestly, shit is NOT going to fall to pieces just because we don't have the requisite meddling douche in office for a couple months. Grow a spine. You don't need these people that badly.
        • by X0563511 (793323)

          or (2) it will continue to worsen until the populace cannot take it anymore, at which point things should get ... interesting.

          If/when that happens, the first place I'm going is to Hollywood. There will be significantly less wealthy residents when I leave.

      • Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:29PM (#39638943)

        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?

        companies are evil, like that. investors often are, too. they want short term this and short term that. very reactive but not long-thinking.

        what we have now is totally broken. but your proposal won't work, either.

        I'm not sure the current structure is at all correct. rather than making small tweaks, it seems to me we need huge changes. as huge as going from linked linear lists to 2d or 3d trees.

        tiered review and rotating officials with some feedback system might be nice to try. lots of watchers watching the watchers. self policing system that ensures stability (think: negative feedback amplifiers, to use a tech analogy).

        there is no way the current system self-fixes. no self policing and power goes unchecked. truly, the people and their good is not being looked after. I think a lot of people agree that our system needs an overhaul, not a tune-up.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          How about we over a simple corruption vote, such that the populace votes, and if more than 2/3 support it, the politician is not only removed from office, but their assets are forfeit, and they are incarcerated as a felon (the vote being a substitute for a trial). The forfeit assets would at least partially offset the costs of imprisoning the politician.

          The idea being that politicians could literally lose their reputation, their money, their vote (in most states), their 2nd amendment rights (in most states)

          • This could probably be enacted as a state level. It's been a good few years since I looked at the relevant bits of US law, but I believe that it's already technically possible for state governments to recall their representatives and senators.
          • by Terrasque (796014)

            ...and thus bringing Big Media's power into a whole new dimension.

            If you really believe that will cut down on corruption, I got a very nice bridge to sell you.

        • 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.

      • I find tyranny a bit harder to swallow when it's "for the People"

        • Problem with Democracy is that it leads to mob rule and tyranny of the majority; two wolves and a sheep deciding what is for dinner.

          The whole point of a Republic is to have statesmen (not politicians) make decisions for their constituents (people), but under the limitations of the governance system they are placed. Right now, the Constitution means whatever people want it to mean, which allows slimy politicians to create and keep resubmitting laws over and over again until they get one passed, and usually i

      • Yep. Politicians are not sufficiently enthralled to corporations by having to fund expensive campaigns every few years. Let's make them have to fund a permanent campaign, that way they'll be.. less enthralled ?

    • I know. It's like having an army of demons dedicated to making your life hell; they get up every day, review the previous day's minutes, then ask themselves how they can top it.

    • by chrismcb (983081)

      The power to expel a Congressman should extend to anyone in the US with at least a given number of supporters.

      It does. You just might need a LOT of supporters.

  • CISPA is bad... mkay

  • Most laws are designed to increase the power of the federal government and reduce the honest citizens rights.

    Laws don't apply to the criminals.

  • by suraj.sun (1348507) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @06:49PM (#39638557)

    http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-2011 [house.gov]

    AT&T
    Boeing
    BSA
    Business Roundtable
    CSC
    COMPTEL
    CTIA - The Wireless Association
    Cyber, Space & Intelligence Association
    Edison Electric
    EMC
    Exelon
    Facebook
    The Financial Services Roundtable
    IBM
    Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance
    Information Technology Industry Council
    Intel
    Internet Security Alliance
    Lockheed Martin
    Microsoft
    National Cable & Telecommunications Association
    NDIA
    Oracle
    Symantec
    TechAmerica
    US Chamber of Commerce
    US Telecom - The Broadband Association
    Verizon

    • by lgw (121541)

      Wow, there are several tech companies in there. Seems like they didn't hear it the last time we got upset about suppporting this kind of crap. Of course, their support may pre-date this rider, and they just don't realize yet what they're now suporting. Seems like the /. hordes might remedy that.

      • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:22PM (#39638889)

        I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.

        go figure!

        • by tqk (413719)

          I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.

          IBM, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Oracle?

          • IBM,

            IBM, as in 'nobody ever got fired for abusing a monopoly' IBM?

            Intel,

            Intel, as in the company responsible for price fixing, dumping, and bribing companies not to use its competitor's products?

            Lockheed Martin,

            You mean a big part of the military industrial complex?

            Oracle?

            Seriously?

            • by tqk (413719)

              I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.

              IBM, Intel, Lockheed Martin, Oracle?

              IBM, as in 'nobody ever got fired for abusing a monopoly' IBM?
              Intel, as in the company responsible for price fixing, dumping, and bribing companies not to use its competitor's products?
              Lockheed Martin ... You mean a big part of the military industrial complex?
              Oracle? Seriously?

              IBM is not the IBM it once was. Lockheed Martin, as in the SR-71 Blackbird (Wikipedia: "Since 1976, it has held the world record for the fastest air-breathing manned aircraft ...").

              As for the others, I didn't say I liked them, but I do respect them.

        • What company do you respect then? I respect a lot of those companies on that list, even if I don't like them. I respect IBM, but it's a cool, remorseless respect. I used to smirk at Microsoft, but I've lately grown to respect them for their responsiveness to business needs. I respect Intel for their relentless pushing forward of manufacturing technology, their attention to quality, and their surprisingly good marketing department.

          On the other hand, I have nothing but disgust for Symantec. Once a great com
      • by IonOtter (629215) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @08:03PM (#39639221) Homepage

        That list is very, very short.

        Compare it to the list of interests that supported SOPA. [opencongress.org]

        Found only two matches: National Cable & Telecommunications Association, and the US Chamber of Commerce. There were a few matches on the opposing side, but not many.

        Now we know who the real players are in the game of controlling the government.

        • The US Chamber of Commerce is a useful resource in the same way as Rush Limbaugh is a useful resource;
          You know anyone in that club is all about fucking over the common man in the USA for the benefit of the sponsors.

    • by Trilkin (2042026)

      Facebook supporting CISPA seems like a conflict of interest here.

    • by Xanny (2500844)
      Darn it Intel, and I was looking forward to Ivy Bridge. But if you use the money I give you to try to usurp my freedom and privacy for profit, you are never getting another cent from me.
  • In my view the real power of SOPA was protection for those choosing to act in "good faith" as judge jury and executioner without the possibilty of civil recourse when this is abused.

    No ISP is going to implement MPAA's wet dream if they know they will be successfully sued into oblivian the second it is switched on.

    This is the same thing all over again.

    Only the choice of words is different to appeal to the "security" boogyman this time around.

    • by aaarrrgggh (9205)

      Shift the argument around. If, for the purposes of thwarting a DDOS, an ISP or service provider needed to take drastic actions that could impact innocent parties in the process, should they be given any protection under the law?

      Likewise... when the security fails at a major bank (more likely, when it is exposed on a massive scale), what kind of timeline do you expect response in? Do you think Treasury agents on the ground looking for forensic evidence in order to build a case against the bad guys will pro

  • Or at least global social networks/mail providers/etc. What happens when (if?) other countries with some minimal respect for their citizens privacy (i.e. EU) put laws that forces companies to protect their citizens privacy?
  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @07:26PM (#39638913)

    It's like somewhere a bunch of congressmen and lobbyists got other and said:

    "Wow, the internet has really been a force for global change. It empowers people to coordinate with each other and share information in a way never before possible. What can be do to put a stop to it?"

  • The corporate and government sectors are BOTH corrupt as hell.

    Enough so that whenever they actually manage to agree on something, it's probably something bad for us small folks.

    Rather how ex wives never like each other unless they both hate the husband.

  • by Smiddi (1241326)
    This comes at the same time Sony announces a $6.4 billion loss. Im sure they will blame music piracy, yet Apple is making those same billions in profit during a GFC. Can anyone see that one business model is overtaking the other? - Sony obviously cant, and have missed the bus too.
  • After going to thomas.loc.gov and reading the text of the proposed law, it seems that it really is pretty harmless.'

    Once you get past the scary definitions, what you have is a law that requires the government and "cybersecurity providers" to not make public any otherwise confidential material relevant to a security breach.

    Plus it allows the government to share information it may have about "cybersecurity threats" with outsiders.

    The only really interesting bit in the whole thing is that it uses "entity" a

    • by X0563511 (793323)

      The problem is where they stick enforcing copyrights and patents into a bill that has nothing to do with it, and is otherwise a fairly decent bill.

      • The problem is where they stick enforcing copyrights and patents into a bill that has nothing to do with it, and is otherwise a fairly decent bill.

        It doesn't do that.

        What it does is define a "cybersecurity system" as one that (among other things) protects copyrights and patents.

        It does NOT give the feds any enforcement powers they didn't already have.

        It does NOT give "entities" any enforcement powers they didn't already have.

        It does NOT specify any criminal penalties for ANYTHING, and only implies crimi

  • Even "paleoconservative" Alex Jones [wikipedia.org] is firing up his followers against government internet surveillance legislation in the works. Here's an example [infowars.com] from one of his sites that even made the Drudge Report last Saturday.
  • If only congressmen had moderators...
    • by Anonymous Coward

      They do. Unfortunately you only get mod points every 4 years.

  • to address multiple issues, not the least of which is transgression against your freedom. while the arab spring fallout from wikileaks was an excellent goose for american foreign policy, the occupy movement has left a rank taste in the mouths of billionaires and the government has thus far run out of productive things to do with Bradley Manning, nude or clothed.

    dont think of it as trampling your rights, think of it as pepperspray-prevention.
  • This bill amends the National Security Act of 1947 to include "(1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information" as "cyber threat intelligence". This is important because amending the National Security Act makes "cyber threat intelligence" a product of the intelligence community. This is important because US persons have protections under Title 50 when inclu

  • by yotto (590067) on Tuesday April 10, 2012 @09:54PM (#39640027) Homepage

    So if this bill is passed, won't it, "degrade, disrupt, or destroy" the Internet? Won't it therefore become illegal?

    • by c0lo (1497653)

      So if this bill is passed, won't it, "degrade, disrupt, or destroy" the Internet? Won't it therefore become illegal?

      Is it illegal for a policeman to shut someone? Sometimes it doesn't.

      Is it illegal someone to shut the sheriff (even if not shooting the deputy)? Always.

  • The official summary says this pertains to the protection of government intelligence information and the measures that are necessary to protect it. This is not about protecting movies from file sharers. The intelligence community is not thinking about movies. They're thinking about espionage.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by TedHornsby (1791978)
      Then why the references to "intellectual property" in the bill?
      • by caladine (1290184)
        My guess would be that the bill also focuses on corporate espionage. Namely the wholesale theft of technology and the like by Chinese and Russian interests.
      • by Shavano (2541114)

        Because the government and companies that work with the intelligence community develop and use IP to gather manage and protect intelligence.

We don't know who it was that discovered water, but we're pretty sure that it wasn't a fish. -- Marshall McLuhan

Working...