CISPA Bill Obliterates Privacy Laws With Blank Check of Privacy Invasion 192
MojoKid writes "At present, the government's ability to share data on its citizens is fairly restricted, insomuch as the various agencies must demonstrate cause and need. This has created a somewhat byzantine network of guidelines and laws that must be followed — a morass of red tape that CISPA is intended to cut through. One of the bill's key passages is a provision that gives private companies the right to share cybersecurity data with each other and with the government 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' The problem with this sort of blank check clause is that, even if the people who write the law have only good intentions, it provides substantial legal cover to others who might not. Further, the core problem with most of the proposed amendments to the bill thus far isn't that they don't provide necessary protections, it's that they seek to bind the length of time the government can keep the data it gathers, or the sorts of people it can't collect data on, rather than protecting citizens as a whole. One proposed amendment, for example, would make it illegal to monitor protesters — but not other groups. It's not hard to see how those seeking to abuse the law could find a workaround — a 'protester' is just a quick arrest away from being considered a 'possible criminal risk.'"
Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
How does surrendering our freedom out of fear match up with our motto?
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Insightful)
Bravery and freedom changed meanings. Now they mean bravery to commit acts of violence and freedom to attempt to control the world. Who needs personal liberty when individuals are only interested in games and trivialities -- sports, music, TV, movies, politics, books, parties?
Re: (Score:2)
Bravery and freedom changed meanings. Now they mean bravery to commit acts of violence and freedom to attempt to control the world. Who needs personal liberty when individuals are only interested in games and trivialities -- sports, music, TV, movies, politics, books, parties?
Huh. I always thought that "Home of the Brave" referred to Native American warriors.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Just tell yourself it's all temporary measures necessary to defeat the evil $EXTERNAL_ENEMY. As soon as the $EXTERNAL_ENEMY are defeated everyone can have their freedom back. Unless, of course, a new threat is constructed, in which case everything will be back to normal right after that threat too is neutralized.
Don't worry about it, citizen. If you insist on thinking about such things your friendly government will give you a free vacation in a beautiful Caribbean island.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Just to clarify: that includes OWS, anti-war groups, med marijuana growers, etc.
The right doesn't have a monopoly on "being persecuted".
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
How does surrendering our freedom out of fear match up with our motto?
It doesn't, and it's not our "motto", but you could at least get it right:
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Funny)
Bricka bracka firecracker CIS-boom-PA!
Creeping fascism! Creeping fascism! RAH RAH RAH!
Re: (Score:2)
Aww...man.....don't do that to childhood Bugs Bunny memories.
That stuff is kinda sacred.....like remembering when the USA was a freedom oriented country.
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Informative)
Because we won World War II
It amuses me to no end that Americans think that they won World War II.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Obama is threatening a veto on this.
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:5, Insightful)
The NDAA passed by veto proof majority, and when he tried to close Gitmo the Republicans blocked all funding for the closure.
The GOP strategy for years now had been to block any and all improvement, and then complain that Obama didn't improve things. If the voters are dumb enough to fall for it, then democracy is over. Either the democrats will adopt the same tactics and we'll have no government at all, or they won't and we'll have single party rule.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Informative)
No, they didn't. Not really, anyway. Because aside from a stretch of a few months, Republicans always had the filibuster, and that's all they needed.
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Informative)
So much wrong or misleading in a short comment.
First, Democrats have had a majority in the Senate since 2007, so 2 Bush years and 3+ Obama years.
Second, they had a majority in the House for 4 years, 2 under Bush and 2 under Obama.
So that's 2 years they had majorities in the Senate and House while holding the Presidency. The President of course has a veto, so that's a key ingredient to getting anything through. The House is fairly strictly majority rule. The Senate, by current rules (since the 70's) allows the minority to block bills unless 3/5 of the full Senate (i.e. 60 Senators) vote for cloture. Use of that tactic has risen dramatically since the Democrats retook the majority in 2007. So when you claim that the Republicans didn't block anything, that's just outright false.
See the Senate [senate.gov] records on how often cloture votes were held to break a filibuster. See the big jump?
2011-now : 48 (D)
2009-2010 : 91 (D)
2007-2008 : 112 (D)
2005-2006 : 54 (R)
2003-2004 : 49 (R)
You can still be against the bills in question. Hell, you can be proud of the R's for blocking them. But don't deny it's happening.
I've heard the "control of congress" tactic be used very misleadingly. If every Republican and barely enough Democrats vote down a bill, you can be technically correct to say that the majority Democrats could have passed the bill. But when you look closer and see 90+% of Democrats and 0% of Republicans voting for it, it's clear which party is more responsible for the bill not passing.
Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave? (Score:4, Informative)
Technically, the motto is "In God We Trust". Don't worry, Obama forgot too :-)
No, it's not; the actual national motto is
E
Pluribus
Unum
"Out of many, One."
Re: (Score:2)
Though it wasn't made official by law, "Land of the free and the home of the brave" is a motto of ours.
Re: (Score:2)
Wondered how long it woud take for someone to get pedantic. Took me moments after clicking submit, but the words are interchangeable in that context anyway, so I stand by it.
Despair is starting to set in (Score:5, Insightful)
The pace is accelerating.
We need some kind of Tracking-Data-Armageddon security breach to make the common citizens wake up and realize that we're all just going to stare at each other in a dystopian fishbowl forever while everything just becomes more unfair.
(Satire)
That's all I can type now because I used up my monthly ascii character quota on two tweets of data for $99.95.
(/Satire)
Re: (Score:3)
Or we could take the insecure, paranoid, governmental, controlling types out back, and put two bullets in their heads. Problem solved.
I'm not advocating a violent solution here, but it does appear that said people are providing the 'aggression' that most political types speak of in a 'Just War,' and have already violated enough of their own laws not to be taken seriously when they say 'this new law will be limited to {various groups and peoples you do not like}.'
Re: (Score:3)
You realize Obama is threatening to veto this, because we are all being so noisy about it? The guy is actually listening.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It is in his best interests to do so. It is an election year after all.
Re: (Score:3)
You realize Obama is threatening to veto this, because we are all being so noisy about it? The guy is actually listening.
Better make sure it gets passed now, then, while he's still in campaign mode, because he's sure to sign it after the election when he's back to let 'em eat cake mode.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
[citation provided] [go.com], asshole.
Re: (Score:2)
Just re-elect Obama for 4 more years, or Romney to replace him, and we'll head down that path where Americans are getting round-up and thrown in jail. The sooner we reach tyranny, the sooner we can impeach the joker, and restore the Bill of Rights.
Bad news, bruddah - only Congress has the power to impeach the President, and considering that they are just-as-if-not-more corrupt than the leader of the Executive... we're pretty much fucked on that avenue.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Despair is starting to set in (Score:4, Funny)
Not to mention you have to have a crime to charge him with, then impeach him, then convict him (which actually gets him out of office). And then we would have Biden...
I felt the same way during the last administration when people started talking about impeaching Bush - I'm no fan, but I'll take Jar Jar Binks over Emperor Palpatine any day of the week.
Re: (Score:2)
Gather 40 or 50 million people outside Congress / the White House with torches and pitchforks, and we will test that theory.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad news, bruddah - only Congress has the power to impeach the President
Exactly. That's why the US Constitution starts with words "We, Congress of the United States, ..."
Re: (Score:2)
Complex scapegoating you're doing there.
Abusing the law (Score:3)
I see this phrase every time this sort of bill comes up where they claim that one group or another won't abuse the law. After some thought, I decided I agreed with their assessment. All this means is that the law is originally intended to be used in that way, if it's the intent of the law, it isn't abuse to use it that way.
Resisting Arrest (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Solution: Don't resist arrest. Even if the cop is full of shit, cooperate with him by letting him place handcuffs on you. And then sue him for thousands later. (You don't have to win; you just have to inconvenience the cop as badly as he inconvenienced you.)
1. Become lawyer
2. Visit prisons every day
3. Profit$
With ages of abuse comes wisdom (Score:5, Interesting)
It hasn't worked out well even once. What you are proposing doesn't work in the real world. On TV the cops are very careful about following the rules. In reality they believe that the rules are there to use when it is convenient, and ignore when it is not. In the situation you just described the absolute best * that you can hope for is going to court several times over the course of several months followed by a jury trial with a not guilty, at which point a lawyer will tell you with a straight face that - in the eyes of the law - even though you are presumed innocent until and unless convicted, the fact that you were found not guilty does not mean that the court has found you innocent. The charge will appear on your record when an employer runs a background check (in most if not all states.) The person doing the hiring will assume that you were guilty and they just didn't prove it, or at the very least that you must have done something wrong to be arrested.
* There is an extremely slight chance the case will be dropped, but that almost never happens even when the police report contradicts other provable facts. In one case I had, the DA actually told the cop that what he wrote made it clear I was not guilty, at which point the cop was allowed to file an amended report with the additional lies needed to tie it all up (The car was stuck in a snowbank in the driveway (True) was changed to the car was stuck halfway in the driveway and half way in the street [The lie they needed (TM).]
Re: (Score:2)
Bring a video camera next time, and a friend.
Re: (Score:3)
Bring a video camera next time, and a friend.
Cop will simply smash both.
Re: (Score:3)
Solution: Don't resist arrest
Yeah, but this does nothing about the all-too-common practice cops have of charging someone with resisting arrest because they don't have anything else to charge them with, rather than because they actually resisted arrest.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm. Is it possible to be charged with 'resisting arrest' without another charge to justify arresting said person?
Re: (Score:2)
If the cops want to arrest you, they will. If you resist you will only make their job easier. Striking against the part of the system that is designed to take those strikes is not practical.
Re:Resisting Arrest (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I see the issue here. An officer can arrest you if he has good cause to (you match the description of a suspect in the area, etc.). This is the original reason you are being arrested. It may later be determined that you didn't commit a crime, and then no charges are filed.
If, however, you resist this arrest, you are then charged with resisting arrest. Simply because you think you didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you just cause to resist the arresting officer.
You don't need to commit any actual crime.
You consider resisting arrest not an 'actual crime'? Are you saying that officers don't have the authority to arrest people?
Re:Resisting Arrest (Score:5, Interesting)
Are you saying that officers don't have the authority to arrest people?
Officers have authority to arrest people ONLY IF:
- the officer has seen you commit an offence;
- someone charges you with having committed an offence and gives an undertaking to prosecute the charge;
- the officer finds you disturbing the peace;
- she/he reasonably suspects you have committed or are about to commit an offence or breach of the peace.
The law also states that you must be told in simple language WHY YOU ARE BEING ARRESTED. Simply having the thug in blue announce "that's it, you're under arrest" is not valid.
This is lost on most of the right-wing assholes who worship the thugs-in-blue, however.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Resisting Arrest (Score:5, Interesting)
Dude, you have some serious misapprehensions about the right wing. Supporting law enforcement doesn't mean supporting lawbreaking by police or other government agents.
In theory, but in practice it does seem to mean exactly that. I wouldn't say that it's unique to conservatives, but to authoritarians. Authoritarians are more likely to be conservatives than liberals, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Resisting Arrest (Score:4, Insightful)
This is lost on most of the right-wing assholes who worship the thugs-in-blue, however.
I dont know any right-wing assholes that worship the thugs in blue, and Im a right wing asshole. Seriously, why does this always end up being a left/right issue? Maybe left-wing assholes think its OK to abuse right-wing assholes and vice versa, but I'd hazard to say "this is lost on people whose party affiliation is more important than their objectivity' which seems to be just about everyone these days. I was 100% with you until that last sentence sand-bagged any credibility you built up to that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply having the thug in blue announce "that's it, you're under arrest" is not valid.
Uh, I never said or implied that. In fact:
An officer can arrest you if he has good cause to...
I didn't realize I had to waste everyone's time by listing all the valid reasons for an arrest. But, hey, whatever gives you a chance to spout off about... something.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Arrest is what happens when you object to being detained.
Actually, the difference is when you're detained you have to stay where you are, when you're arrested you go to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
"Disrupting the peace" is the usual thing the cops hit you with when they can't think of anything else. You may be completely innocent but they'll hit you with that so they can jail or fine you.
Like when they drug Professor Gates off to jail because he (rightly) was angry at being forced to let cops inside his house in violation of his 4th amendment rights. The professor should have sued the cop and the station, and turned it into a national event to emabrass police everywhere. But no. Instead he caved.
Re: (Score:2)
Btw do you think the mentally-retarded woman deserved to be beat by cops 3 months ago?
What... THE HELL?!?!?! How on Earth did you come up with that based on my post?
How do you compare a lawful arrest with beating somebody?
Or that the man who recorded with his phone deserved to be drug to jail?
Where are you coming up with this crap?
You probably do.
No. No I do not agree with any of the bat-shit crazy things you just said.
Re: (Score:3)
You drug someone with arsenic. You then drag him deep into the woods.
Sounds like a confession to me. Lock him up, boys!
Re:Resisting Arrest (Score:4, Informative)
"Simply because you think you didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you just cause to resist the arresting officer."
Yes, it does. That is what a court is for.
“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.
Re:Resisting Arrest (Score:5, Informative)
Oops, slashdot ate part of my comment.
To add to that: “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.
Re: (Score:3)
It's a cyclical joke at that point. And one of the things the thugs in blue count on. "Resisting arrest" and "disobeying a lawful order" - you can be given an UNlawful order, arrested for "disobeying" it, have "resisting arrest" thrown on for spite.
Even if you prove the order was UNlawful, they can try to make the "resisting arrest" stand with any number of corrupt judges who are more than willing to set unreasonably high bail, endorse witness tampering under color of law (e.g. witness tampering BY the pros
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So once the person has been arrested, and further investigation has occurred, it may have been determined that the person did not in fact commit the offence (or insufficient evidence, whatever).
I am pretty sure they are talking about arresting people without reasonable grounds and then charging them for resisting arrest. If a cop cannot even give me a reason why he is arresting me, he has no business arresting me and I definitely have no inclination to cooperate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, you do. Because if you do not, you just handed them a legitimate charge to use.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We vowed not to repeat past mistakes (Score:3)
To not arrest people and throw them in jail for merely speaking (Sedition Acts) or suspected terrorists (round-up of asian-Americans). We said it would never happen again, and yet we are going down that same path (indefinite detainment for mere suspicion).
Re: (Score:2)
Finally. I got sick of living on this planet anyway.
Blank Check? (Score:2)
'notwithstanding any other provision of law.'
If that's an actual quote from the bill, what the fuck? I mean, aren't laws repealed and modified by further legislation and "provisions of law"? "And this law says you can't ever change this law" sounds like something a two year old would propose ... am I incorrect in assuming that with that sort of clause this bill basically ensures that once it is passed it can never be r
Re: (Score:2)
That's not what the clause means. It is a clause stating it overwrites any other existing provision that might disallow what it is now allowing.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress supercedes it with another law or repeals it. Was that really so hard? That clause is pretty standard legalese in bills.
who are the assclowns (Score:2)
that keep sponsoring these bills?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The good news is it sounds like this one will get the big V.
That's what he said about the NDAA, and we all know how that turned out. [politico.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You mean like he vetoed the ACTA?
- Oh no he signed that one.
You mean like he asked congress to remove the "indefinite detaiment" from NDAA?
- Oh no he asked them to ADD those two sentences.
- And then he signed it.
- Obama == Bush; can't believe a word coming out of his mouth.
Re: (Score:2)
Lamar Smith, a Rebublican representative of Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
The same ones who profit from the changes.
Sign the Petition (Score:5, Informative)
Pass it on.
A general rule... (Score:3)
> even if the people who write the law have only good intentions, it provides substantial legal cover to others who might not
It's important to remember; It's difficult to grant broad new powers to government or corporations and confine these powers only to the people who agree with your personal philosophy.
Legalizing corporate spying, raiding and pillaging (Score:2)
* companies are authorized to share "cyber threat information" with other private companies or the government "notwithstanding any other provision of law." That appears to mean that if a company decides that your private emails, your browsing history, your health care records, or any other information would be helpful in dealing with a "cyber threat," the company can ignore laws that would otherwise limit its disclosure.
CISPA is another way of getting *ANYTHING* labeled a "cyber threat" so an entire can of
POTUS Opposes the Bill (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Until when? Wasn't he positioned to veto NDAA until they removed the /requirement/ to detain terrorism suspects?
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed. That is what I recall as well. Quite the bait and switch.
The current President voted up Patriot Act II as a Senator. He sponsored tort reform as a Senator that could be used as a bludgeon against free speech. He sponsored ACTA, and tried to keep the contents of the treaty a state secret.
I'd not hold my breath waiting for a veto on this.
Re: (Score:3)
The difference is the NDAA passed by veto proof majority, so Obama decided to try to weaken it via signing statements and executive orders. Not ideal, and not what he wanted, but it's all he can do.
I'm tired of people trying to blame Obama for this law. Blame your congressmen. Given how many voted for it, odds are at least one of yours is culpable.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd give him some finger snaps if he said he read the bill, and would veto it.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Romney has a shot of winning?
Or that it would be better with Romney in charge?
Re: (Score:3)
Considering what I see in the polls, and that no one I know would think of voting for Obama (again for some of them), yes, I think anyone would have a chance beating Obama. Me? I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I'd vote for a small soap dish over Obama.
I mean, his administration has done nothing positive in their years here at all so far that I can tell....legislation pushed through was an abomination, and they've plunge
Re:POTUS Opposes the Bill (Score:5, Interesting)
You're being willfully ignorant.
Thanks to the Obama administration:
1) The stimulus and auto industry bailout saved the country from depression. Look at how austerity has turned out for Europe... It's been an unmitigated disaster for them, whereas our economy went from free fall to 10 straight quarters of continuous growth. Only a liar or a fool would claim it didn't work.
2) Credit card companies can no longer change your due date at the last minute and use the late payment as an excuse to jack up your interest rates. They can also no longer jack up your interest payments because you were late paying an unrelated third party.
3) Credit card companies have more reasonable limits placed on the amount they can charge retailers on each transaction, helping small businesses.
4) The Small Business Association has been expanded, making it easier for startups to get funding.
5) Full funding is being provided to centers to protect battered women and rape victims. The Republicans are currently trying to repeal that law (the Violence Against Women Act) because it also protects lesbian rape victims (the horror!).
6) We're not paying for permanent military bases in Iraq. The war would be over regardless, but McCain planned to keep troops there.
7) The infamous stop-loss programs are over. If you remember, under Bush, soldiers who had finished their tours of duty were being forced to stay in warzones anyway.
8) Wars are now properly recorded in the budget so we can see how they affect the deficit, rather than being hidden. Of course, this leads to him being blamed for "increasing" the deficit.
9) Torture and extreme rendition have been banned.
10) Nuclear weapon stockpiles, both in the US and overseas, have been reduced substantially.
11) Don't ask, don't tell was repealed.
12) The Ledbetter law allows women to sue employers who engage in pay discrimination.
13) We have Network Neutrality laws for the wired internet (though not for wireless).
14) Millions more people have access to health care, many of them children or chronically ill, and it was done in a manner that reduces the deficit. Single-payer would have been better, but it was barely politically possible to get through the current version.
Now, maybe if you only get your news from Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, you might think that Obama hasn't done anything positive. But that's your own failing. Any intellectually honest person who has been paying attention would admit that Obama has done a damn good job.
Re: (Score:3)
Me? I'm not a huge Romney fan, but I'd vote for a small soap dish over Obama.
Let's put it this way: what exactly would Romney do that'd be any better than what Obama has already done / will do?
Always assume evil intent (Score:2)
Let's say Obamacare is upheld. The president could then define what treatments must be covered, what may not be covered, what might not be paid for by gov and so forth. So what prevents President Chimpy McHitlerburton from abortions from being covered? Privacy? Not if Obamacare is upheld, because that law puts the government directly or indirectly into the transaction.
Or what about the various attempts to bring religion into the
Re:Always assume evil intent (Score:4, Insightful)
....The president could then define what treatments must be covered, what may not be covered, what might not be paid for by gov and so forth....
You mean as private insurers currently do?
Who didn't see this coming? (Score:4, Funny)
They told me if I voted for John McCain, we'd see even more invasions of privacy than under George W. Bush, and they were right!
Always assume evil intent (Score:2)
Because no matter how "nice" the current administration and management will be, there will be someone in the future looking for a loophole to abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Now what are the odds of that? Replying to a comment and coming up with the same heading as the comment above it?
It's a good thing I'm not a gambler -- I'd be taking this as either proof that it's a "good luck day" or cursing the fact that I "wasted" my luck on something so trivial., :D
Contact your representative (Score:2)
This bill was introduced by Rep. Michael “Mike” Rogers [R-MI8] with the 112 cosponsors [govtrack.us]. Isn't it great when both parties work together? Brought us the Patriot Act, and now this. If one is yours, feel free to contact them.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, please do call your reps. If if you're like me and "bipartisan" isn't granular enough, here's the break down so we know who to blame:
The Patriot Act - 2001 (Yeas / Nays / Not Voting):
House of Representatives [house.gov]:
Republicans: 211 / 3 / 5 (96%)
Democrats: 145 / 62 / 4 (68%)
Independents: 1 / 1 / 0 (50%)
Senate [senate.gov]:
Republicans: 49 / 49 / 0 (100%)
Democrats: 48 / 1 / 1 (96%) - Hooray for Russ Feingold
Independents: 1 / 0 / 0 (100%)
CISPA cosponsors (from your link):
Republicans: 86 (out of 242, 35%)
Democrats: 26 (out of
The difference between a protester and a terrorist (Score:2)
is a word.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, if you could stop associating libertarians with RP libertarians and 'Tea Baggers' that would be cool, okay? You seem to have a severely twisted idea of what libertarians are and are not, and it hasn't been helped by whatever party you're affiliated with.
Thanks...