Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy Your Rights Online

CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence' 258

Posted by Soulskill
from the don't-make-us-shut-down-the-internet-again-buddy dept.
SolKeshNaranek writes with news that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA, has decided to tempt fate by referring to the protests that are springing up as 'turbulence on the way down to landing.' From the article: "What really comes through in the article — which mostly talks about how Rogers has been supposedly working with Google to change some of the language in the bill to make it more acceptable -- is how little concern Rogers has for the public. Instead, most of the article just talks about how he's been working with tech companies to make sure they're okay with the bill. And while that's a start, it's no surprise that lots of tech companies would be okay with CISPA, because it grants them broad immunity if they happen to hand over all sorts of private info to the government. But to then call the protests mere 'turbulence' is pretty damned insulting to the actual people this will impact the most: the public, whose privacy may be violated."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence'

Comments Filter:
  • by stms (1132653) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:46AM (#39720451)

    Why are so many /.ers insisting that Dems are less guilty than the Republicans in this fight we've recently been having over internet freedom. SOPA/PIPA had some bipartison support (and opposition) but it was mostly the Democrates bill. Check out this informative wikipedia article [wikipedia.org]. Both sides are equally full of currupt assholes stop giving one side a free pass just because you think they're ideallistically superior. Idealism doesn't mean shit when you have two wolves (the politcal parties) and a sheep (the people) deciding what's for dinner. They mainly just argue about how they're going to cook us.

  • Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Nidi62 (1525137) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @07:02AM (#39721223)

    Lenin and Washington were from revolutions as well. Hitler was elected into power. Well, Washington was elected into power, but based at least partly on his performance in the revolution.

    But Washington was also elected into the Revolution. He did offer his services, but he was also elected by the Continental Congress to lead the Continental Army. Prior to that, his one and only significant military action was in the French and Indian War, and resulted in him surrendering.

  • Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Informative)

    by guises (2423402) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:25AM (#39721627)
    Mao is too old to be relevant? He only died in '76, that's not that long ago.

    Clinton and Chavez are better examples of what you get from a revolution? Did you think this through? They were both elected. Chavez staged a failed coup, but was democratically elected afterwards.

    Why was this modded up?
  • Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Hatta (162192) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @09:35AM (#39722141) Journal

    Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties

    In the US, both major parties are right wing. One is just more extreme than the other. There is exactly one moderate in Congress, Bernie Sanders.

  • Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:15AM (#39723087)

    "... the only violence done was done to us."

    They say smoking pot damages memory, and in your case it seems true.

    I guess you don't remember the Weather Underground, or the Black Panthers.

    I was there too, and I wasn't stoned. You have a selective memory which is quite inaccurate.

  • Re:Constituants. (Score:3, Informative)

    by spooje (582773) <spooje@noSPam.hotmail.com> on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:54AM (#39723523) Homepage

    True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party could pass any legislation they wanted no matter what the opposition wanted. What happened with that?

    • - continued the Bush bailout policy
    • - stayed in the Bush started wars, later started new ones
    • - continued Bush violations of civil rights, and started new programs to curtail rights
    • - continued Bush's tactic of screaming terrorist to take away those rights
    • - continued torture and "secret" prisons started under bush
    • - not only took no steps to reduce the deficit but ramped it up.

    So the upside of Bush's 3rd term has been?

  • Re:Constituants. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @12:40PM (#39724113)

    Protests have no effect. Votes have no effect. Terrorism has no effect. This is capitalism, only money has an effect. If you don't have large amounts of money, you are a production machine and your opinion matters as much as that of a cow.

    The only way of stopping the absolute power of money in capitalism is revolution. Anything else is fruitless crying.

    I disagree. SOPA and PIPA were effectively killed due to public outcry. The issue at hand is who has more endurance: the public to continuously reject these types of bills or the people that keep introducing them.

  • Re:Constituants. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:24PM (#39724645)

    True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party could pass any legislation they wanted no matter what the opposition wanted.

    six months [wordpress.com]

    What happened with that?

    Basically, the Affordable Care Act, which the Right has tried to obstruct every step of the way. (Actually, they've tried to obstruct Obama himself and everything associated with him since inauguration, and haven't been shy about their intent to do that.)

  • Re:Constituants. (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:46PM (#39724963)

    True, but for the first two years of his presidency he had a super majority in congress meaning his party...

    The Democrats had a majority, they had nothing close to a super majority in either the House or the Senate.

It's time to boot, do your boot ROMs know where your disk controllers are?

Working...