House Passes CISPA 616
wiedzmin writes "The House approved Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act with a 248 to 168 vote today. CISPA allows internet service providers to share Internet 'threat' information with government agencies, including DHS and NSA, without having to protect any personally identifying data of its customers, without a court order. It effectively immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for disclosing customer information, grants them anti-trust protection on colluding on cybersecurity issues and allows them to bypass privacy laws when sharing data with each other."
First (Score:5, Insightful)
George Orwell
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml [house.gov] Handy list of the reps who voted for this turd.
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks. Good to see that my rep seems to be doing ok so far. Against CSIPA, against SOPA/PIPA, and a couple of other bills that were important. Go Honda!
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
"Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatenedâ"again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power."
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml [techdirt.com]
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
TL;DR version - CISPA is how "Total Information Awareness" [wikipedia.org] and spying on every US citizen without cause becomes legal.
What's really sad is that the current Supreme Court couldn't even be counted on to assert the 4th amendment if this got challenged in court. After all, 5 of those senile delinquents recently ruled that you can be strip-searched for jaywalking.
Sad Little People (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't get it through your heads, but it's true:
Your
Republic
is
Gone
The throw little bones your way, called things like a "Ron Paul" or a "Democratic Alternative" so you can't quite give up hope, in pursuit something which became quite impossible, some time ago...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullets in the hands of citizens solve ALOT of problems.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Psychologically it's easily explained: There is no saturation point for power (or money for that matter) where the powerful or the rich says, "you know, I've got enough now, so I'm going to settle down, stop going for ever more power and cash, and I will just enjoy what I have amassed from now on." Never going to happen.
So the striving for more power and money continues, but as the gap widens between the powerful and the exploited (or rich and poor), the ones on top must jealously guard their position again
Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.
Actually, that creates problems.
Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Insightful)
So, how many problems in the US in, say, the last 10 years have been solved by an armed populous? The USAPATRIOT Act? The DMCA? The TSA?
Or do bullets just act as a security blanket to prevent people from bothering to get actively involved in the democratic process because they 'can always overthrow the government later if it gets really bad...'
Re:Sad Little People (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No they don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
"If we overthrew the government, we couldn't watch The Voice anymore."
Re: (Score:3)
There's a BBC version that will still be available in the event of the collapse of the USA, so don't worry, it'll be fine.
Re:No they don't. (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>Some of us also feel murder is something that should be taken VERY seriously, and generally avoided at all costs
Most of these politicians are near death anyway. So they end-up in a coffin 20-30 years ahead of schedule... in the long term it matters not. 100 years from now, we probably won't even remember their names.
BUT you raise a good point about the after-revolution.
Probably the new Constitution would be written to give the government all kinds of new authority (as happened with the EU Constitution aka Lisbon Treaty). We're better-off trying to restore the existing document piece-by-piece by electing ourselves into Congress and then repealing these bad laws. As Congressman Paul says, "It took 80 years to reach this point, and may take just as long to undo the bad legislation."
Re:No they don't. (Score:5, Interesting)
You want to see some changes?
Reinstated Glass-Steagall
Formalize the separation between Church and State.
Add a new separation between Business and State
Provide free education through Masters Degree, and for every year after your AA, you have to work as a teacher for 1 year, all your living expenses will be covered and you'll receive a small stipend OR you will serve in the National Guard OR you will work to rebuild the nations infrastructure... pick
Less than 3% of the nations educational budget should go to administrators... figure out how to divvy that up guys. Education is not an industry, its a birthright
People will pass a basic test to vote. Those that don't vote will pay a small tax. Those that do vote will receive a small credit. People want to act like idiots, we'll put the dots close together for a couple generations until they get the hint.
We provide contraception, we teach reproductive health and we explain to young people actions have consequences, some that last a lifetime. We stop being squeamish about telling people the friggin truth and we get desperately honest with one another on a social scale.
We put checks and balances back in, and we pull the fascist imbeciles out.
We stop prosecuting whistle blowers and make them national heroes instead.
We subsidize elections and media donates precisely the same amount of air time to each candidate. Anyone can run for anything, and a non-partisan organization provides extensive information on each candidate for public consumption. This organization is composed of volunteers from diverse backgrounds and beliefs and changes governing members on a frequent and short term basis.
Freedom of the press and protection from ideological control by any single group, corporate interest, or ideological body will be strictly enforced by law.
Put a choke hold on the banks, muzzle them, screw the lid on so tight they pop, follow up by doing the same to the insurance companies.
Split health care into for profit and not for profit. Ensure that not for profit health care is excellent, and accessible to everyone. People who are injured in the commission of felonies and misdemeanor pay 10 times the going rate and if unable to pay must perform public service until the debt is paid.
Lemme see, did I miss anything? I'm sure I did. Well this is a good start. I figure this might make a dent in the national stupid that pervades our society today.
Re:No they don't. (Score:5, Insightful)
Add a new separation between Business and State.
This needs to be said again and again, until it is heard.
If a business wants their corporate viewpoint heard in government, they need to encourage their employees, clients/customers, and distributors to vote in their favor, rather than simply throwing money at the problem.
Re:No they don't. (Score:4, Interesting)
Thomas Jefferson as part of the original bill of rights put Freedom from Monopoly as one of those rights because of the doings of a then infamous group called the East India Trading Company which resulted in our revolutionary war.
Unfortunately, the business lobby was as strong in his day and even though he attempted to get it put in the constitution something like 12 times during his time in the public sphere, it was shot down each time.
Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)
Just like he was gonna veto NDAA until it gave him more power?
Re:Sad Little People (Score:4, Informative)
If it doesn't get vetoed, then it's time to use the ammo box. This just fucked up the future of my children. I will give my life for them.
Re:Sad Little People (Score:4, Informative)
>>>Obama has said he would veto it
Wow you're a gullible little fucker. Didn't he ALSO say he would veto the NDAA? Yes. Then he signed it. The lying piece of shit.... I suspect Obama is really George Bush wearing a mask.
Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)
It was passed by a veto-proof majority. Obama subsequently weakened it by executive order stating that any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.
I swear, that "Obama supports the NDAA!" propaganda is the most devastatingly insidious lie since the "swiftboat veterans" for "truth".
Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Informative)
Also, Obama specifically requested the removal of language that said the NDAA would not apply to US citizens or lawful residents. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY [youtube.com]
I'm sorry--I think there's a big difference between "swiftboat veterans" for "truth" and "Obama supported the NDAA and specifically requested some of the draconian language in the bill"
Re:Sad Little People (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad the Supreme Court already nullified that (and other) executive orders which try to change law. They have ruled time-and-time again that the Legislative Power lies with the congress, not the president, and the written act of the bill overrules signing statements or E.O.s
Oh and "it was passed by a vetoproof majority" doesn't mean crap to me. He still could have vetoed it, and then I would have respected the man for honoring his commitment to uphold the Constitution (and the right to trial in the 6th).
>>>any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.
This doesn't mean crap to me either. The Constitution says a "jury of your peers" shall decide your guilt and punishment (or innocence), not a panel of unelected bureaucrats that serve the pleasure of the president and his desire to be "touch on crime" (think George Bush or Mitt Romney). Heck, not even the right to defend yourself exists.
Re: (Score:3)
Our political system is Kang vs. Kodos.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Now we'll see if Obama keeps his promise
(veto the bill).
I'm not holding my breath.
In other news: Megaupload will likely Not be prosecuted by the U.S. Government because the judge ruled the government has no authority to "serve" a foreign company. Bad news: The U.S.G. still wins because they've destroyed the company, so RIAA and MPAA got their money's worth when they bribed the politicians to act as their puppets and kill megaupload.
I can't help wondering if the same tactic will be used in the future against sites or persons that Hollywood/the record companies desire to be silenced. No doubt CISPA will make that task so much easier.
Danm Fcukers.
Re: (Score:3)
I just read a post by a Wikipedia staffmember that said "CISPA is not a bad bill" and then justifies his position.
It makes me wonder who bribed the wiki corporation & staff to spread that lie.
No wonder they didn't protest it.
Re:First (Score:5, Interesting)
You might also want to check on why your rep voted against it. Mine voted against CISPA too.
Why?
Because it didn't go far enough. He essentially wanted it to include an Internet kill switch to stop cyber threats. He did at least mention privacy concerns but one thing is clear: We need an Internet kill switch! We need government regulation describing the exact security software you must be required to buy to place a computer online!
So check up on your reps. They may have voted "no," but you may not like the reason why.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Both parties aren't equally bad, but the difference is still coke and pepsi. One group stabs you in the back, one stabs you in the front. Take your pick.
Re:First (Score:4)
Oh, right...
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
Not to feed the troll here but actually it breaks down as thus:
Republicans:
Yea - 206
Nay - 28
Not Voting - 7
Democrats:
Yea - 42
Nay - 140
Not Voting - 8
Percentage-wise it breaks down as 28% Dems approved the bill vs 85% Repubs supporting.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First (Score:5, Informative)
I think it's worse than that. I think the dems didn't vote for it because they knew there was enough votes in the Republican camp to carry it. If there weren't, then they would have been required to vote for it.
They all have the same handlers, after all.
Re: (Score:3)
They all have the same handlers, after all.
You mean Goldman [opensecrets.org] Sachs? [opensecrets.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds like the NSA is right on track to get all the legal requirements ready for them before switching on their new data center out West.
Re:Mod please +5 paper bag over head (Score:5, Informative)
Since 2000, we've seen the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, telecom immunity for the aforementioned, indefinite detention(and now assassination!) of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, NDAA ... and this relentless effort to legalize internet espionage.
Furthermore, it's no secret that the NSA is building a huge new data center in Utah.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1 [wired.com]
This stuff isn't in the realm of "conspiracy theories" nor exclusive to wearers of tinfoil hats.
Re:First (Score:5, Insightful)
In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy.
And in the 00's it triumphed over privacy. And we allowed all of this to happen by not standing up for our rights. Apathy rules.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:First (Score:4, Informative)
By "cybersecurity issues" they really mean "piracy".
Re:First (Score:4, Insightful)
All of The Onion is more truth than satire.
House of Representatives (Score:5, Funny)
House of Representatives, for peculiar values of "Representatives".
Re:House of Representatives (Score:5, Insightful)
They are representatives, just not of the people that voted for them. They represent the people that paid for their campaigns.
Re:House of Representatives (Score:5, Informative)
At least the SCOTUS ruling that political donations = free speech, and can remain anonymous, has made official what we already knew--your vote doesn't matter. Those with money get to "vote" for both sides, so they own whoever wins regardless.
Re:House of Representatives (Score:4, Informative)
Re:House of Representatives (Score:4, Insightful)
I like the way it says "CISPA allows internet service providers to share Internet 'threat' information with government agencies".
"Allows"
Worded like that it almost sounds like it will be optional...
Re: (Score:3)
Just like income taxes are 'voluntary'...
No Surprise (Score:4, Insightful)
"Not voting" (Score:5, Informative)
Roll call here [house.gov]. He was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.
Re:"Not voting" (Score:4, Interesting)
That's better than 248 cunts but not as good as 168 principled representatives. Just not good enough.
Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Insightful)
[Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.
You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.
What the fuck did you do for the cause of liberty today?
Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Insightful)
By not voting, the estimable Ron Paul did as much as most people posting about it here on /. have done. So he has a bigger microphone, by not voting on it, he did not do his job.
Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Informative)
By not voting, the estimable Ron Paul did as much as most people posting about it here on /. have done. So he has a bigger microphone, by not voting on it, he did not do his job.
They pushed the voting day up by one at the last minute. Ron Paul was campaigning in Texas at the time, it was probably logistically impossible for him to get back in time to vote.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Insightful)
You sir are guilty of first-order thinking, rather than looking at the secondary and tertiary effects. Two scenarios:
(1) Ron Paul cancels his four speaking engagements today and tomorrow, pisses-off ~8000 people who will post "Ron sucks" on facebook (which are then read by ~80,000 other people), flies all the way across the west coast to the east coast to cast just *1* vote..... which would have done nothing to stop CISPA from passing anyhow.
(2) Skip the vote because he knew he could not stop the passage. And instead talk to those 8000 people in Arizona and Texas, ignite their desire to fight for liberty and the Bill of Rights, share that fire across facebook to their ~80,000 followers, and thus provide the foundation that will inspire these people to run for Delegates and Legislature and the Congress, and eventually repeal CISPA, NDAA, and all the other crap that has been passed.
Had I been Paul, I would have picked scenario 2.
Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Insightful)
Very reasonable.
But wait a sec... Aren't you the guy who in this same thread condemned Obama as a "lying piece of shit" and "George Bush wearing a mask" because he didn't perform the futile gesture of vetoing the NDAA after it had been passed by a veto-proof majority?
To copy your two scenarios:
(1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media and in the minds of millions of Americans for vetoing health care for wounded veterans (which was in the same bill), and it does nothing to stop the NDAA from passing anyhow.
(2) Obama skips the veto since he knows he can't stop the passage, and does what he can through signing statements and executive orders to weaken it. (Which is what he did.)
Why do you apply rational thinking towards the actions of people you like (Ron Paul) and not those you hate (Barack Obama)? Can you even really call it rational thinking, if you selectively apply it like that?
Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Informative)
Here in the UK, we have a (slightly quaint) process for if an MP can't attend a vote. They contact someone who they know is going to vote the opposite way to them, and agree with them that they will both abstain (which has the same effect as if they had voted opposite ways and cancelled each other out). This is the trick usually used by the Prime Minister and senior Ministers (who are both members of the government and the legislature) when they need to go jetsetting around the world meeting foreign leaders and whatnot.
Could Ron Paul not have made similar arrangements?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Why would he veto CISPA? He already signed ACTA. He loves these kinds of laws/treaties.
Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) He already announced his retirement from Congress.
(2) According to NBC's Rachel Maddow and other sources, Paul has now won 4 states, and it appears he will win ~10 more over the next few weeks (the states that were won by Gingrich/Santorum are now "freed" to whoever has the most delegates; probably Paul). Plus I expect Maine and Nevada will go to Paul too, since he scored the majority of delegates.
We're going to have a brokered convention where Romney will not have the 1144 votes to win the nomination. It will be split.
(3) You don't quit a 26 mile marathon at mile 22. Paul's come all this way, and only has two more months to go. It would be silly for him to quit, especially since he's only ~450 delegates behind Romney, and that gap is closing (see point 2). Paul started the race; he might as well go all the way to the finish line, as he did in 2008.
Re: (Score:3)
So far 1334 delegates have been dealt out - 838 to Romney, only 88 initially to Ron Paul. Even if you believe that all of Santorum's and Gingrich's delegates would vote for Ron Paul all three of them together only add up to 496 delegates. There are currently 2286 - 1334 = 952 delegates left and Romney needs 1144 - 838 = 306 more to win or about 32%. Ron Paul has something like 15% support in the popular polls, but he's going to take 68% of the remaining delegates? On top of taking 100% of the freed delegate
Re:"Not voting" (Score:5, Insightful)
[Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.
You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.
Actions speak louder than words.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:"Not voting" (Score:4, Insightful)
Actions speak louder than words.
He wasn't voting today because he's at his home with his advisers who are plotting their (succeeding) delegates strategy to challenge Romney for the Republican nomination, so Paul can end the wars and all of the abuses of the Executive Branch (TSA, et. al.), de-fang the Federal Reserve (i.e. stop breaking the economy), veto bad legislation like CISPA, and return the country to a system based on Rule of Law.
But, yeah, he didn't cast this one vote. You'll have to decide if that's abrogation of duty or not.
Re:"Not voting" (Score:4, Insightful)
he did the same thing as Ron Paul did today, nothing.
You really need to get over your Ron Paul man crush.
He's a guy with a few good ideas, but a lot of nonsense. Especially his economy crap.
Re:No Surprise (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason's pretty obvious, and it's the same reason he missed a couple votes this year..... he's busy giving speeches for his campaign (~2000 people per day show up to see him). I think it's a wise move.
Igniting the fire of liberty in the 15-to-35 year olds, the next generation of politicians and voters, is more important than casting just 1 vote which would not have stopped CISPA from passing.
Re: (Score:3)
You prefer the Obama or Romney brand of liberty? While I may not agree with everything Paul says, he's still the best voice in Congress for liberty and the Bill of Rights. I agree with him on 99%.
Re:If it is his brand of liberty. (Score:5, Informative)
Check the party breakdowns ... (Score:5, Informative)
... and then tell me "there's no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml [house.gov]
Yes, I will tell you that (Score:3, Insightful)
Because here is how modern American politics work: the state gets expanded at every possible opportunity. This is what the Democrats want (so long as they can get more entitlements) and what the Republicans want (so long as they can get free rein to send the military into new wars). The only question is, what gets expanded?
As I have said elsewhere, it's pretty obvious that the government plans on listening to everything going on on the Internet. This is just legal formalism.
Re:Yes, I will tell you that (Score:5, Insightful)
Jesus H. Christ. Here is a very clear-cut case, having practically nothing to do with either entitlements or war, in which a strong majority of Democrats voted against expanding the power of the state, and a strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Just out of curiosity, is there anything that could convince you that there's a meaningful difference between the parties?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Jesus H. Christ. Here is a very clear-cut case, having practically nothing to do with either entitlements or war, in which a strong majority of Democrats voted against expanding the power of the state, and a strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Just out of curiosity, is there anything that could convince you that there's a meaningful difference between the parties?
My Sig speaks for itself.
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans were against SOPA while Democrats backed it.
So now the roles are reversed and you want to use that as evidence that there's a difference?
Re:Yes, I will tell you that (Score:5, Insightful)
Any time you catch yourself saying or thinking this - anything that contradicts me is proof I'm right - close the tab and walk away. It means you've fallen into a positive-feedback trap of seeing only what you want to see and as a result are now completely full of shit regarding the topic.
Re:Check the party breakdowns ... (Score:5, Informative)
Democracy at its best (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, it was the conservatives who voted for this travesty.
Obama is threatening to veto it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-threatens-to-veto-cispa-cybersecurity-bill-citing-privacy-concerns/2012/04/25/gIQAkS3khT_story.html [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Obama also promised to:
Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers, expand the child and dependent care credit, create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners, provide the option for a pre-filled-out tax form, require automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans, require automatic enrollment in IRA plans, end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, end no-bid contracts above $25,000, repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes, phase out exemptions and deductions for hig
Re:Democracy at its best (Score:4, Insightful)
Rough draft. Edited to protect MY privacy:
In the name of security we have the TSA, I am sure you are familiar with their current situation. If not, Google. And allow me a moment to give you a brief overview: strip-searching old women, patting down an 4 year old girl, targeting female passengers with full-body scans, smuggling...all in the name of fighting terrorism while at the same time providing the largest terrorist threat: insecure security checkpoints.
TSA needs to be shut down, they accomplish nothing but necessitating a ridiculously large crowd that is easy for a bomber to target. Since these crowds don't get bombed, there is no significant terrorist threat, and the TSA is uselss. But I digress.
In the name of security we now have the CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). The goal again being a more secure internet. What we don't need is a more secure internet, the internet is secure enough for those who care enough (encryption via PGP, VPN's, E-mail anonymizers, etc.). What we do need is privacy. This bill threatens privacy too much; it is also too similar in scope to SOPA. I sent you a letter about SOPA, and though it wasn't in your consideration, you said you would keep these views in mind "should legislation regarding internet regulation come before the House of Representatives" (Letter to REDACTED, Jan 19, 2012). You also state "It is imperative that we recognize the need to balance the freedom promised by the Internet with the responsibility to protect the rights of consumers and businesses."
You have failed.
The 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which I am sure you swore an oath to uphold, states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." CISPA is in direct conflict with our Constitutional rights.
There are better ways that the goals of CISPA can be achieved, and they do not involve disclosure of private data to determine online threats. If you are unaware of these better ways, then you have no reason to be voting on such issues until you become better informed.
One of the goals of CISPA is to assist in reporting/detecting cybersecurity. That is all well and good, and can be done with ONLY IP Addresses and does not need to contain personal information of any sort.
In the name of security we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into abandoning our rights and allowing the government to strip us of our rights and convenience so that we can be safer. Catchall phrases such as "to protect against terrorism," "for the children," and "for national security" have been used all too much to justify blatant abuses of the government's power.
In the name of security our country has maintained the USA PATRIOT act, an act originally intended to be short-lived.
In the name of security we have become absurdly inconvenienced when traveling, had our privacy dissolved, and many basic rights washed away. This needs to end.
In the name of security we have allowed the terrorists to win: we have a government consistently and continually crushing our rights and eroding our freedoms, and this once-great nation is now the laughing stock of the free world because we are a disturbingly pitiful former shadow of ourselves.
As a US Marine Corps infantry machinegunner, I am ashamed of our government.
Vote breakdown ... but amendments? (Score:3)
Here's how each representative voted (or not):
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192 [govtrack.us]
But does anyone know where to find the details about what each of the various amendments was? ('amendment 10 [govtrack.us]' isn't really all that useful)
Well.... (Score:5, Insightful)
my long-time girlfriend and I have been debating whether to leave the country. I guess the strategy is to keep our heads down as long as possible, ignore using the internet, learn another language or two, save up as much as we can, and get the fuck out of this country.
For some reason I was really starting to think I could settle down in this country, have a family, and be productive.
Re: (Score:3)
And where were you considering going to?
Be sure to check deeply into their immigration laws, and see if they will even consider you.
Lyle Myhur said it best (Score:5, Interesting)
"When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet."
-- Lyle Myhur
Time to find a foreign VPS for my openvpn server (Score:3)
I currently have a VPS that I use as a VPN server for my mobile devices and laptop when I am on travel and redirect all of my traffic through. I do this mainly to keep Verizon and ATT (specifically ATT when I tether) grubby little mitts of my data.
I think it is time to switch to a foreign VPS provider, somewhere in the EU or Asia, and reroute ALL of my traffic through there. My only issue is currently my FIOS speeds far exceed my throughput at my current VPS..
Republican Driven Legislation (Score:5, Insightful)
All you GOP hack lovers who espouse about their love of Privacy, Liberty, Guns, blah, blah, blah take a look at the count:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml [house.gov]
AYES: GOP 206, DEM 42
NOES: GOP 28, DEM 140
NOT VOTING: GOP 8, DEM 7
Don't tell me the GOP is for your privacy. Stew in your own bull****.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Democrats will screw you in the name of ending piracy, safety, global-warming, and taxes. The Republicans will screw you in the name of security, starting wars, policing pornography, and enforcing morality. The one guy you thought was awesome, the one you you thought was different? Well turns out he's a coward.
Does voting even matter at this point?
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately for the Republicans, enough Dems went along with the stupidity that the bill passed. If those 42 Dems hadn't voted against their constituents' interests, the final vote would've been 206 GOP ayes versus 210 mostly-Dem noes.
Why can't Congress ever work together on something I want?
as someone who works at a bank (Score:5, Informative)
Let me just give you a sample of the kind of data they will have access to, without a warrant, if Obama doesn't veto this.
Every transaction you have made involving a card, ever, including the date, time of day, name of the merchant, city and state of the merchant, ID number of the terminal where the card was swiped, amount of transaction, etc etc etc.
Every time you withdrew money from an ATM. it stores the amount, the location of the ATM, the time of day, etc.
The same goes for online transactions.
An image of every check you have ever written.
Every deposit slip you have used.
Every time you have talked to a teller in person, the interaction is recorded.
Every time you have called the bank on the telephone.
It is all there. Waiting for the government to use it, as it sees fit.
---
Now, link that up with records from places like Wal-Mart. They can correlate card numbers with items. They know what brand of toothpaste you buy. They know what kind of toilet paper you use. They know if you like to buy a lot of baggies (are you a drug dealer?), if you buy a lot of cold medicine (are you a meth dealer?), if you buy a lot of condoms (are you a pimp?), etc etc etc.
---
Now, link this up with projects like the CINDER (Cyber Insider Threat) ADAMS, and PRODIGAL (some of which have been program-managed by former hackers like Mudge from l0pht heavy industries). If you dig through these 'proposals', you will find academics saying things like "Maybe a target goes to lunch at a different time of day. that might indicate a threat". This is where our tax money is going. This is what is being built.
Re:Treason (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, executing traitors who brazenly break their solemn oath to uphold the constitution WOULD be a positive step.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it is.
When you're executing someone you're only taking their life.
When you violate someone's constitutional rights, that's a crime worse than murder. It is taking away the human rights that we're all entitled to and deciding that your profits, your business, and nebulous "threats" are a reason to go through the trash and history of every single person that has never been accused of a crime.
It's better to have a bomb attack every day -- even on my house -- than to give ISPs the ability to be immune from lawsuits, to share my private data, and to allow the government to decide that you know what, warrants are a pain in the ass after all.
Those are not the actions of a democratic government, or even a republic. If they aren't ready to put the integreity of the constitution ahead of their meagre lives, then yeah, that's treason. And the US is at war. Hang 'em up in from of the Capitol as a warning to the others.
Re:Treason (Score:4, Insightful)
When you violate someone's constitutional rights, that's a crime worse than murder.
Please explain how murdering someone does not take away all their natural and constitutional rights. Oppression is neither so complete nor so permanent a state as death. Rights are only relevant to the living.
Some may choose death over abandoning their principles, for the sake of their own integrity and/or as an example to others, but that is hardly the same thing as claiming that murder is morally superior to oppression. It merely means that you can't safely assume that someone would rather be oppressed than accept the risk (or even certainty) of death—or vise-versa. That is an individual decision, and no one has the right to make that choice for another.
Whether it is better for a few to die or for many to suffer lesser violations of their rights... one might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Like most matters involving interpersonal preferences, there is no objective answer. So far as I am concerned, however, the only principled answer is that you shouldn't do either—even if other people make difference choices. If there is a way to prevent the deaths without violating anyone's rights, great. If not, we must learn to live with the risk.
Re: (Score:3)
That's why the rest of the world calls it "The American Fall".
(The rest of the world calls the season "Autumn.")
Re:The Founding Fathers ... (Score:5, Interesting)
God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.
--Thomas Jefferson.
The Founding Fathers knew this would inevitably be a problem long before Orwell was born.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the internet makes his point mute.
" The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. " well, we pretty much can now.
The people can, yes, but most of them don't want to. The 2008 election was a perfect example of that.
Re:The Founding Fathers ... (Score:4, Informative)
No more so than newspapers or television or radio allowed, and look at how bad those are at supplying good information. The Internet is as full, if not more so, of bad information than the world was before it. The reality is no cure for human stupidity and ignorance exists. What is more, the problem has grown much much worse: there is so much information online, it is literally impossible to know even a small fraction of it, much less figure out what of it is important and what is not. Relying on sites like Slashdot or Reddit doesn't work: they are so full of groupthink, actual open discussion (while it does exist) rarely hits the front page.
All the people cannot be well informed on everything. Most people don't even know what "well informed" actually looks like. On some issues, yes, but even then, there are always interests controlling the media (even the Internet, yes even Slashdot) that direct people towards their own point of view. And if you continually only hear one side of the news, you will start to believe it. Everyone does: it's human nature. Or they only listen to one side because they already believe it (happens as often as not too). Either way, the Internet isn't a solution. It's practically part of the problem.
Re:wtf is "internet threat information"? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like smurf. It means whatever the DOJ and LEOs want/need it to mean.
Re:So now what? (Score:4, Informative)
After it is passed by the Senate, and then after the President signs it. What classes do you miss in elementary school?
No, he didn't (Score:4, Informative)
No Vote R Paul, Ronald “Ron” TX 14th
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192