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This discussion has been archived.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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:17AM (#39720063)

    So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people. He's been working with CORPORATIONS to make sure that CORPORATIONS don't have any problem with the LEGISLATION that is put upon THE CITIZENS.

    As for the opinion of CITIZENS? -- Who gives a fuck?

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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:06AM (#39720303)
      Corporations make donations while citizens just whine and bitch. He knows who butters his bread.
    • by Faluzeer (583626)

      Hmmm

      The corporations are the primary source of the politicians campaign contributions, contributions that allow the politicians to continue on the gravy train. As such, do you really expect them not to look out for the best interests of said corporations first?

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

      by Thanshin (1188877) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @06:04AM (#39721009)

      So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people.

      What's bizarre at this point is how is it possible that so many people don't already understand that. I think it's sufficiently clear that the government is not a tool for the people and that democracy doesn't allow changing that.

      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.

      • But crying makes me feel like I'm doing something! That's enough, right? I don't need to actively plan for revolution, right?! The good guys will win out over fascism!!

      • by StikyPad (445176)

        Ok, I'll bite. What form of government should be implemented after said revolution? As Churchill once said, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

        Not to mention your logic is circular. Either you have a majority of people willing to support a revolution, and thus could vote in the change they want peaceably, or else you have an armed minority enforcing their will on the majority. How is that better? Because you say so?

    • by flyneye (84093)

      I'm surprise he didn't say " Let them eat cake"
      But then the angry mob will probably be carrying rubber hose and pepper spray instead of pitchforks and torches.
      History repeats but it paraphrases.

    • by lwriemen (763666)

      They're working on a new freedom, so government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations, shall not perish from the earth.

    • The religious and corporate welfare US is a plutocrat republic.
      IOW: Forget freedom, capitalism, democracy ... for US.

      The religious welfare US will call out their minions to strike fear into the masses and (when needed) kill any patriots.
      The corporate welfare US will call out their lawyers and politicians to economically strangle and torture small business and individuals into submission.

      When the entitled fools like Rush, Ted, Glenn ... and congressional politicians got your back, you're more than likely ro

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:18AM (#39720071)

    Why... why didn't you vote for Ron Paul...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      because his economic policies would result in widespread poverty

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by darthdavid (835069)
      Fixing the problem of corporations having more power over the government than citizens by voting for a libertarian is like hiring a Catholic Priest to protect your children from pedophiles...
      • by zephvark (1812804)

        Fixing the problem of corporations having more power over the government than citizens by voting for a libertarian is like hiring a Catholic Priest to protect your children from pedophiles...

        Charming quote. But the government has no special claim on competence or honor. The people who work for it are no more your friends than the giant corporations. The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.

        • by Serpents (1831432) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @06:44AM (#39721145)
          Free corporations of any government oversight and you have Cyberpunk 2020 - corporations become independent states with their own military and law enforcement agencies. Unlikely? Well, the SFPD has already been used as a private police force [cultofmac.com] but that was at least questionable and a few people had some explaining to do. If corporations are accountable to no one you can be sure that they are going to take full advantage of that. Yes, the current system is broken and governments sit in deep pockets of their corporate sponsors but they have to do something from time to time to please the masses if they want to keep up the appearances of a democratic election process.
        • The goal of libertarianism is to whittle down the power of the government, without which these corporations would have no lever to enforce their appalling designs.

          So who do you think is going to take over the various services that are currently provided by the government, which people are not going to just part with? The very corporations whose power you think libertarianism will reduce. Do you really think that those corporations are going to have the best interests of the people in mind when they develop "industry standard" practices for disposing of toxic waste? Do you really think that corporations that do not have to go through the government, and can just

        • by mcvos (645701)

          Charming quote. But the government has no special claim on competence or honor. The people who work for it are no more your friends than the giant corporations.

          And that is the problem that needs to be fixed. Doing away with government altogether because the one you voted for is bad, will just result in a power vacuum that will be filled by a government that you didn't vote for.

          Vote for a government that is your friend. That's what you need to be doing.

      • by moeinvt (851793)

        Power and corruption are intimately linked. A government where 535 politicians can suck $2.2T out of the economy, borrow trillions more and pass sweeping laws (CISPA e.g.) which affect the lives of 330 million people will always be corrupt.

        We should be electing libertarian candidates to federal office so that they can shrink the size and scope of this monstrosity in Washington D.C. and restore power to the states and the people where it belongs. Corporate influence will crumble and fragment if power and r

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Jawnn (445279)
      Because he's a thoroughly marginalized, radical, pretend libertarian, with well documented racist views? In other words, what sane person who values their vote as a tool for positive change would vote for such a man?
    • by rilian4 (591569)
      An excellent question. The political machine on the left has brainwashed their constituency into thinking any non-Democrat vote means the end of the world...it's simply not true. Ron Paul would have made an excellent President and set this country back on the path to prosperity.
  • by TheEyes (1686556) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:32AM (#39720139)

    Telcom companies don't care about public opinion. They don't have to; they've carved up the country into their own spheres of influence, much like Europe carved up China in the 19th century. If I want an internet connection to my house, I have exactly two choices, who offer suspicously similar pricing schemes. Regulators should be looking into this, but they won't because they're being paid too much money to look the other way.

  • by Transist (997529) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:34AM (#39720155)
    It's incredibly frustrating that these 'sponsors' will continue to ram legislation down our collective throats such as this, when it clearly is against the general good and serves only private interests. Even if a bill such as SOPA gets defeated in the public spotlight thanks to major protest campaigning, it just shows up a couple months later under a different name. The tragedy is you can't get people interested in fighting 'the man' every week. I was very pleasantly surprised by the general outcry when SOPA was being pushed through, but I seriously doubt you can rally that kind of support every time these legislators bow to lobbying pressure and essentially copypasta their last draconian bill and rename it without any effort at all. How are you supposed to fight this kind of system (a term I generally avoid in this kind of context, but is rather fitting), when it's painfully obvious that the common man really has far too little say in government?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:34AM (#39720157)

    Either we all stop buying movies and music for a few years so the MPAA and RIAA go bankrupt, or we shoot them all... I'm fine either way.

    • by jamstar7 (694492)
      Lock & load...
    • by DarwinSurvivor (1752106) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @04:18AM (#39720589)
      They'll just scream pirates and demand a bail-out like the automotive companies did. Then they'll use the governments money to buy new laws.
      • This doesn't work long term.

        The only way to get rid of them *is* to stop consuming their products, it will work and it will work faster than most people think.

    • by Serpents (1831432)
      I like the ideas (especially the latter one) but how much time would pass before taxes similar to the "potential piracy tax" we pay on blank CDs would be charged even on printer paper? I'm afraid we would only make them push for legislation which would guarantee them a nice and steady stream of revenue regardless of whether they actually release any movies or music
    • by Phrogman (80473)

      I am perfectly willing to stop buying music and movies for a 2 year period if everyone else is willing (actually I never buy any music - I don't listen to it - and I *seldom* buy a movie because so few of them are worth watching more than once. Those that are IMHO, I buy).
      I can see nothing negative about the MPAA and RIAA going bankrupt. People will still want music and movies, they will just cut out the leeches^H^H^H middlemen that serve no real purpose

    • Option 1 will just leave a load of rich sociopaths looking for something else to exploit.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:42AM (#39720187)

    ...shoutdown the politicians that would suggest the government has a right in the first place. Always hold them accountable. (thats the goal)

  • by WiiVault (1039946) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:44AM (#39720195)
    Not that the Dems are much better, but they aren't so brazen in their total disdain for informed voters. Pure evil vs the possibility of some hidden discarded and ignored goodwill is 2 two party choice. Today's voters are indeed offered options at the polls; between Vader or the Emperor himself. Maybe they will both destroy each other in the end. Or did George decide to fuck with that too?
    • 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.

      • by pla (258480) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:20AM (#39721595) Journal
        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.

        Not less guilty - "Differently" guilty.

        The Republicans want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as mindless zombie serfs to the Corporate Police state.

        The Democrats want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as politically correct zombies who don't want to float to the top (and aggressively push down those who do).

        Both sides "hate our freedom" far more than the bogeyman of the week, and will take any steps necessary to strip us of what little sense of individuality we cling to.
  • by mwvdlee (775178) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:44AM (#39720197) Homepage

    Representative Mike Rogers

    Why don't the US instate public representatives in addition to the current corporate representatives?
    It seems like such an easy solution to this representation issue you guys are having.

  • "Turbulence" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by girlintraining (1395911) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:06AM (#39720299)

    ... In other news, the Senator woke up to find the ghost of internet past in his room, carrying a very long chain, each one forged from a civil liberty removed.... Rogers dismissed the entire affair as turbulent, and was shortly after killed by a mob of angry young boys on crutches, which is how Dickenson would have ended it if he'd had to role play with Rogers, who has the character flaw "Turbulent."

  • by FSWKU (551325) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:12AM (#39720329)
    To paraphrase:

    Mike Rogers: "The will of the people will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that democracy has been dissolved permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever."

    Barack Obama: "But that's impossible! How will we maintain control without the illusion of people having a voice?"

    Mike Rogers: "The regional CEO's now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local populations in line. Fear of having their personal information leaked with immunity."

    Barack Obama: "Excellent. Everything is proceeding exactly as I have forseen it..."

  • Pollies will get burnt!
  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:35AM (#39720411) Homepage

    Well, if that doesn't spell out his perception that he is in a class above the rest of us, nothing else does. Amazing arrogance.

    Still, I'd guess we are only at about 8%... probably less... the rest of the world still has no idea what's going on.

  • Enough turbulence, and the whole bill will come crashing down in flames, killing the reelection prospects of all on board.

  • Hundreds have been killed in crashes due to turbulence.

  • by benjfowler (239527) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @05:48AM (#39720955)

    You voted for these rightwing extremists, you then have to accept the consequences when they make bad laws to reward their backers.

    Don't like tyranny? Don't vote for extremists. Simple.

    • by moeinvt (851793)

      Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties in Washington DC agree on is that government should have more power and the people should have fewer freedoms. If these people are entitled to the label "moderate", then we definitely need more extremists. The type that will fight against this relentless assault on our essential liberties.

      • 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.

  • serve. Nice. Well, at least he's saying what he honestly believes. It's the same opinion the MPAA has. The major lesson learned from the SOPA debacle by the MPAA according to their lobbyist in chief is that they need to make sure to get tech. companies on-board. No mention of fatally flawed legislation; no mention of stupefying ignorance of how the internet actually works; no mention of the curtailing of the rights of the people. Nope, they just need to buy off the right companies and politicians regardles

    • by Shavano (2541114)

      You seriously fail to understand the differences between SOPA and CISPA.

      You also fail to understand that the army of supporters you think is behind you just isn't there. SOPA got millions worked up because of the things that distinguish it from SOPA.

  • This is what "freedom" and "democracy" really mean -- nothing to prevent rich companies and their paid lackeys in government from pulling things like this.

    If congressmen had mandatory public election financing (no "democracy" for the rich), and government was strong enough to be able to destroy "copyright industry" (no "freedom", "small government" and other dumb ideas that weaken the government and make it dependent on rich people and companies), no one would ever bother conflating security with rent-seeki

    • by moeinvt (851793)

      I just don't get it. It's obvious that you believe the government is corrupt and controlled by the corporations. Yet you describe "small government" as a dumb idea? Why would you advocate giving more wealth and more power to a government you believe is corrupt and beholden to special interests?

  • but don't forget, sometimes turbulence causes things to crash. We caused enough "turbulence" to make SOPA/PIPA go sit on a shelf for a while.
  • Or the 99%, or the little people, or whatever. Thus it will be until the oil runs out and the current governments fall. The "good" news is that the price increase/energy return gets so horrible so fast that this could happen before 20 years is out.

    Cheers!

  • by 3seas (184403) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:26AM (#39723181) Journal

    ...deception. And that techniques is to go to a higher abstract level of a structure to effect a lower level but to remain isolated, protected from that lower level.

    The same sort of deceptions the Occupy Wall Street protesters and movement are addressing.

I cannot conceive that anybody will require multiplications at the rate of 40,000 or even 4,000 per hour ... -- F. H. Wales (1936)

Working...