Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Government Privacy Your Rights Online

CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence' 258

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This discussion has been archived.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?

  • 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 @02:51AM (#39720219)

    because his economic policies would result in widespread poverty

  • No he's not. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Zsub ( 1365549 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @02:55AM (#39720247)

    But here you are wrong. With SOPA, the public at large managed to find -- finally, I might add -- the supreme spot where to exercise influence over legislation. See, if corporations control politics, it's no use trying to influence politics directly. But if we can influence the politics corporations push for, which we demonstrably can, we can influence politics. Therefore, your point that people don't matter anymore is false.

  • "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."

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:09AM (#39720315)
    When are you going to go into open revolt? Drumming on a plastic bucket and chanting, "Down with the 1%!" doesn't count. Armed resistance is what makes a revolution. Man up or shut the fuck up.
  • Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jamstar7 ( 694492 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:10AM (#39720319)
    For a revolution in the US, you need 2 things.

    1. Everybody needs to go a day without eating.
    2. Shut off the internet & the cable tv.

    You'll have a new government in place in the morning.
  • by darthdavid ( 835069 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:11AM (#39720321) Homepage Journal
    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 sjames ( 1099 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:43AM (#39720437) Homepage Journal

    Historically, Democratic presidents have closed the gap between rich and poor and overall increased income for the middle class It's too bad they've been becoming more Republican lately.

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @03:55AM (#39720511)

    A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy. The most likely outcome is that you'll get some unstable maniac in charge, with no limits on his power.

    Revolution is not a magic "reset the government" button. It's a form of election that puts a disproportionately high number of votes on those willing to kill, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.

  • by Endovior ( 2450520 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @04:33AM (#39720669)
    Wait... we're still pretending there's an actual difference between the Republicans and Democrats now? Both clearly want the same thing; more spending, more debt, more rules. The only difference is what each side makes it's partisan points off of; Republicans like spending money on guns and subsidies to their rich backers, and Democrats like spending money on entitlements and subsidies to their special interest groups. Both sides like passing new laws that benefit whoever's bribed them, and neither likes tearing down laws, unless it's a specific law that's especially unpopular with their buddies. Neither likes going after the debt, since there's no political points to be made there; except in accusing the other side for not doing enough about it, and thus to attack the other side's spending preferences. Both sides are essentially doing the same thing, so the overall direction of things remains the same; the only 'change' is that whoever's winning at the moment can throw more tax money at their buddies.
  • Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @04:37AM (#39720689)

    G. Dubya Bush is what you get from a democracy that has gone bad.

    Mao or Napoleon are what you get from a revolution.

  • 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.

  • by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @06:31AM (#39721101)
    No, the only difference is that Democrats (before Obama) would tax and spend. The Republicans would borrow and spend, while claiming to be more fiscally responsible.
  • 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 [] 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.
  • Re:Constituants. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @06:57AM (#39721195)

    Yes. Revolution means the utter failure of the current system. It's a last resort when you have nothing to lose, because you're taking a HUGE risk that things will turn out 10x worse. You're far better to invest some time and effort into fixing the current system rather than failing to vote or not being involved in politics enough to influence anything. Write those letters. Make your view heard. Use the tools you have *within* the system. Yes, it's screwed up and it's hard to believe we ordinary citizens can make a difference, but where's SOPA now?

    I get the feeling that some people would rather sit around on their lazy arse until the government truly is a serious disaster, then they'd be happy to shoot up the place, go home, and then assume it will all be magically better. No, probably not. Did it work that way during any other civil war in the world? Heck no. It's a total crap shoot. Worse, if most people cared so little before the crisis to do something to prevent impending disaster, they certainly aren't going to be able to guarantee things will be any better after the crisis. Revolutions can go bad. Really, really, really BAD.

    Pressing the "revolution" button is rather like pressing the big "nuclear" button during the Cold War. You really don't want to go there if it is in any way avoidable.

    So, get off your political ass and be involved rather than saying "I'll be involved once they start shooting."

  • Re:Well... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by benjfowler ( 239527 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:05AM (#39721489)

    That's the single dumbest thing I've read all day, and something I'd expect from an american conservative.

    Obama is well to the Right of any centre-left party in Europe or Australia. He'd be comfortable as a conservative in most of these places, actually.

    You're either stupid, or a liar.

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

    by demachina ( 71715 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:35AM (#39721699)

    "you'll get some unstable maniac in charge. . . those willing to kill"

    Yea we sure need to avoid letting anyone grab power who might:

    A. Execute people, including U.S. citizens, women and children, without a trial, like with UAV's and Hellfire missiles
    B. Torture people
    C. Lock people up indefinitely without a trail
    D. Snatch people all over the world, put black bags over their heads, drug them, and render them to various dictatorships for indefinite detention and torture, and occasionally snatch the wrong people, oops
    E. Start long, expensive wars under false pretenses, that kills hundreds of thousands of people and bankrupt the U.S.
    F. Engage in massive electronic spying on citizens without a warrant or court oversight

    Yep, we definitely don't want any wild eyed revolutionaries grabbing power and doing that shit .

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

    by Isaac Remuant ( 1891806 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @08:56AM (#39721869)

    I'd think that Obama was a better example of the failures of apparent democracy.

    His photo appears in the dictionary when you look for charisma or oratory but he ran on a platform of opposition to most of the things than by the "Other Party" and ended up maintaining very much the same policies in large scale (expanding many of those concerning civil liberties and foreign policy).

    You had this option to oppose what Bush did. It said it would do things differently (in very specific terms). Once elected, it didn't.

    Democracy doesn't work because we've developed the science of propaganda to a point where the amount of money you have is directly related to the odds of winning an election.

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

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @09:26AM (#39722079) Journal

    Revolution is not a magic "reset the government" button. It's a form of election that puts a disproportionately high number of votes on those willing to kill, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.

    This is true. But the threat of revolution is the only leverage we have left anymore. If you want to avoid a revolution, we need to reform the system. Anyone who is not serious about reform is pro-revolution.

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

    by DigiShaman ( 671371 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @09:31AM (#39722101) Homepage

    History begins the moment you're born. In other words, historical perspective varies from person to person.

  • by Jawnn ( 445279 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @09:41AM (#39722207)
    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?
  • Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by guises ( 2423402 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @10:40AM (#39722787)
    What? Historical perspective is all well and good, but history doesn't change from person to person. I don't think I'm following this conversation anymore.

    Clinton and Chavez are not good examples of leaders which came to power after revolutions because they did not come to power after revolutions. That's all there is to it. Don't get all metaphysical on me, it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.
  • Re:Constituants. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcgrew ( 92797 ) * on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @11:00AM (#39722969) Homepage Journal

    You kids are cute in your ignorance. My generation never got violent (hell, we were all stoned on reefer) but our protests got the Vietnam war stopped, we got the draft stopped, we got the EPA instituted, we got equal rights for black people, and the only violence done was done to us.

    You kids need to put that cocaine down and smoke a joint. As the Salvor hardin said in Asimov's Foundation, "violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."

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

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @12:59PM (#39724345)

    Right on most counts, save one.

    This is NOT capitalism, it is FASCISM. We haven't had capitalism since corporations were incorrectly classified as "persons." That decision, coupled with the New Deal and the Federal Reserve are what has led to today's fascist structure.

    It's 100% fascist.

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

    by StikyPad ( 445176 ) on Wednesday April 18, 2012 @01:30PM (#39724723) Homepage

    Washington was also shy of the spotlight. Reluctant leaders are often the best kind.

    I think that's probably where democracy got lost. When leaders are nominated by the people who know them, rather than "throwing their name in the hat," you tend to get people who are worthy of the position. When you have people nominating themselves, you get self-aggrandizing assholes. I'm not sure how to make the former work on a large scale that doesn't require campaigning though, which is nothing if not self-aggrandizing, and certainly not in a way that can't be gamed.

Mathemeticians stand on each other's shoulders while computer scientists stand on each other's toes. -- Richard Hamming