Draft Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Update Expands Powers and Penalties 141
Despite calls to limit the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, it looks like Congress is planning to drastically expand the law and penalties. walterbyrd writes with a few of the major changes listed in the draft bill (22 pages): "Adds computer crimes as a form of racketeering. Expands the ways in which you could be guilty of the CFAA — including making you just as guilty if you plan to 'violate' the CFAA than if you actually did so. Ratchets up many of the punishments. Makes a very, very minor adjustment to limit 'exceeding authorized access.' Expands the definition of 'exceeding authorized access' in a very dangerous way. Makes it easier for the federal government to seize and forfeit anything."
TechCrunch also reports rumors that the plan is to push the bill through quickly for approval with a number of other "cybersecurity" bills in mid-April.
Just as guilty? (Score:1)
And how, precisely, do they plan to prove this?
Thoughtcrime?
Shit like this is why politicians shouldn't even be trusted with a minimum wage McJob, let alone drafting legal policy for things like telecommunications, computer use, and the liike.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fascist America (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
At least with Fascism they told you what they were going to do once they got into power. With the current government there's no publicly acknowledged consistent ideology for why they need all this power. They are amassing all this power, for what?
Re: (Score:1)
They are amassing all this power, for what?
For the coming massive economic/currency crash, followed by World War/revolution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's for globalization and the one world government. What else? Hell, we're being conditioned to accept and respect titles like "czar" already.
When the ruling class is ready for us to know who holds the puppet strings, they'll let us know.
Re:Fascist America (Score:4, Insightful)
Big business controls the government, and the government will control every single aspect of your life.
Who really thinks big business will hold the leash in this relationship? They simply aren't that powerful, don't have the resources or the guns, and they aren't sufficiently unified compared to a large national government, especial one as vast as the US federal government.
Now, if it were say a half a dozen or less massive businesses (something like the Japanese zaibatsu [wikipedia.org] of old) who controlled virtually all private activity, then you'd be speaking of players who would have power sufficient to deal with the federal government as near equals.
We have to keep in mind that the federal government spends above 20% of GDP and is likely to stay that high for a while. The largest private enterprises, Exxon-Mobile and Walmart are about a tenth the size and have a profit margin to maintain.
OTOH, the US federal government spends somewhere under a dollar to acquire $100 according to the IRS (so I understand, though I getting the data from a secondary source [beaconhill.org], see page 24).
It also maintains a large military and law enforcement, which in part maintains the societal infrastructure that generates the tax revenue present and future that the US government depends on (either directly through taxes or indirectly through borrowing). I don't think such necessary expenses would be higher than about 10%. That means the rest of it is money waiting to be doled out to constituents, special interests, and building up federal bureaucracies. Now, some fraction of that remainder is going to have to go to entitlements and other gifts to voters in order to preserve the overall revenue stream, but I bet they have a margin that a private company would be willing to kill for.
Re:Fascist America (Score:5, Insightful)
The bank bailout of 2008. Even though the banks failed the most basic rules of capitalism, there was no meaningful penalty for institutions or individuals. All the whining about Dodd-Frank regulation is crocodile tears. The big Wall Street firms have not changed in any way. They still engage in appallingly bad behavior because of unbridled greed. JPMorgan just got caught effectively breaking the new regulations and lost $6 billion as a result. There were still casino gambling, but they called it something else. The fallout: nothing. No legal or regulatory action. Dead silence after one day of hearings. Jamie Dimon just got a big vote of confidence from his board, and retains the titles of both CEO and Chairman. He was personally aware of what went on. Yes, at some point an underling will be thrown under the bus and go to jail, but the big crooks are untouched.
DCMA in general and this legislation in particular. It criminalizes the most innocuous actions so that business can crush anyone at any time. This is the government doing the bidding of mega corps.
Fracking. Ever increasing areas of the country are having their water supplies poisoned forever so that Big Oil can make more money. It's worse then Chernobyl or Fukushima, because radioactivity has a half life. Fracking is a irreversible change to geologic structure. It will take geologic time to recover. These are the same companies that were the most profitable businesses in the history of the world in the 2000 decade. They still get obscene tax brakes that go back to 1926.
Monsanto and GM crops. First they said the the manipulated genes would not get into non-GM crops. Then when it happened the courts ruled that the non-GM planing farmers could be sued for stealing their IP. So if GM crops are used in an area, either you plant a different crop, or are forced to use the GM seeds to avoid being sued. The Mafia is envious.
In addition: Big Pharma and Oxycontin. HDMI cables. EULA. "Clean Coal". Mandatory ethanol from corn. Increasing the number of 1-HB visas.
The constant feature is that big business can buy damn near any legislation they want. The government is the enforcement arm of corporations. In the real world the law goes to the highest bidder, and all the money and power resides in corporations. When you blame the government your corporate owners are delighted. They can keep right on going because their disinformation campaign is working perfectly. Any fix requires understanding who is in charge, and you have it completely wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
The bank bailout of 2008.
What about the bank bailouts is supposed to prove your point? It wasn't the banks who could on the spur of the moment channel many trillions of other peoples' money. That point resided with the governments of the world.
Fracking.
If fracking is dominated by business interests then why isn't it being applied as quickly as possible everywhere? California supposedly has much larger [nextbigfuture.com] shale oil reserves than North Dakota has, but it doesn't have the same activity. Why can't businesses get what they want in California, if th
Re: (Score:1)
Everything you listed is correct, but I will disagree vehemently on the most major principle: the US govt- senators and representatives- in fact ARE in control. That they pander to the corporations is well known and being accepted by all. But the senators and reps. do it willingly, and the sheeple keep reelecting them. If the sheeple would realize that whoever the news media presents is truly the enemy, and vote for someone who is not headlined, we might start to have a country again.
There are grass-root
Re: (Score:3)
In addition: Big Pharma and Oxycontin.
The good news is that increased enforcement is choking off the street supply of painkillers.
The bad news is that prescription opiates are being replaced with real opiates: heroin.
You can find news articles talking about the shift, starting around 2008 [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The disinformation you should be worried about is the progressive and left-wing disinformation you are listening to. Free markets are the solution to these problems, not the cause. Big businesses don't like free markets and don't like operating in free markets, they like government regulation, government-mandated monopolies, and government subsidies and bailouts. And Obama has been even worse in these areas than his pred
Re: (Score:2)
Actually not a new one, just one that was espoused in the early to mid 1920's on wall Street. This game isn't new. This time the "bad" guys got the laws changed ahead of time, so they were innocent of fraud.
You're right that this isn't a new game, but wrong about the particulars of the law. In the 1920's there were fewer laws regulating this, but laws and regulatory bodies were created as a result of the Great Depression (Glass-Steagall, SEC, etc.). And while many of the laws were revoked or weakened ahead of time (e.g. Glass-Steagall), many of them weren't. But who cares if there are laws when they're not enforced? That's much of what happened this time - massive financial crimes (under existing statutes) wer
Re: (Score:2)
If there is no government force, big money will easily buy private force to do competition in, and free market it will be not.
So what? If it comes to that, my money is against those sorts of armies. There have been a number of historical revolutions where privately funded armies have been used and turned to be pretty worthless.
For example, there's the French Revolution (which early on, prior to Napoleon, had a bunch of poorly equipped soldiers beating mercenary armies), the Russian Civil War (several of the Soviets' adversaries ran mercenary armies), the Chinese Civil War (the Chinese Communists went from assured destruction wh
Re: (Score:2)
To keep the market balanced with enough players you have to involve a government like body.
Given how the rest of your post contradicts this assertion, perhaps you ought to examine it?
Re: (Score:1)
'Securitisation chain' means the bank sold that debt to the capital market. The bank could give money to everybody and the 'share holders' would take all the risk.
Yes, the movie 'Inside job' details how those changes allowed those banks to count money that didn't exist. Just like Enron did.
No. making a profit means they can stay in business. Unbridled greed is not mentioned in the 'Causes of the wealth of nations', the definitive study of the free market.
I'm in the business of acquiring cars. Please arr
Re:Fascist America (Score:4, Interesting)
'Securitisation chain' means the bank sold that debt to the capital market. The bank could give money to everybody and the 'share holders' would take all the risk.
Yes, the movie 'Inside job' details how those changes allowed those banks to count money that didn't exist. Just like Enron did.
No. making a profit means they can stay in business. Unbridled greed is not mentioned in the 'Causes of the wealth of nations', the definitive study of the free market.
I'm in the business of acquiring cars. Please arrive home late on Thursday night so I can shoot you and take your car. THAT is 'unbridled greed' and punishable under another law.
As the movie 'Inside job' reveals, Goldman-Sachs created loans they knew would go bad then insured those multiple times. That insurance scam is what ruined the AIG corporation.
Hear, hear! Quoting the parent because I lack mod points, and people should see it. The only "basic rule of capitalism" is to make money, and if fraud isn't prevented, then scams will prevail.
Re: (Score:2)
No. making a profit means they can stay in business.
You missed my comment that the quotes were there for a reason. It's is not unbridled greed to want to stay in business, it is a basic rule of capitalism. That's why calling wanting to stay in business "unbridled greed" is both patently absurd and a reason to put that phrase in scare quotes. Calling it "unbridled greed" every time any company wants to make a profit is just ridiculous and a waste of everyone's time, but it makes those who rant about evil capitalism feel good.
Please arrive home late on Thursday night so I can shoot you and take your car. THAT is 'unbridled greed'
What a stupid analogy. Nobody sh
Re: (Score:2)
The central banks, that's who. Which nation's economies aren't controlled by a central bank affiliated with the world bank?
Re: (Score:3)
So you don't think this legislation has anything to do with the copyright lobby, which taken in aggregate is larger than the entire U.S. government?
It's funny that you talk about "above 20% of GDP" as if it's high, when countries with stronger protections for civil liberties, like Denmark, have a government sized at 50% of GDP. Seems like smaller, US-style government doesn't produce any benefits.
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny that you talk about "above 20% of GDP" as if it's high, when countries with stronger protections for civil liberties, like Denmark, have a government sized at 50% of GDP.
Actually, that's roughly 58% of GDP [oecd-ilibrary.org] in 2009 and Denmark is higher as a fraction of GDP than any other country in the OECD.
There is state and local government spending in the US. That is about as large as the federal spending. So sure, the US government could spend another 15-20% more than it currently does, though there's no particular reason to do so aside from digging the economic hole deeper.
As to Denmark and its fabled "stronger protections for civil liberties", it's part of the EU which recently
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think failing to bail out banks is much of an intrusion on civil liberties. Cyprus was not "forced" into accepting anything. They were merely offered a deal with some terms. They could've refused it and let the banks fold.
I believe, contrary to your prediction, that we'll find libertarian shitholes to correspond strongly with weaker protections for civil liberties. If the government isn't providing basic infrastructure, the country will suck. The U.S. is going that way already, which is why I got ou
Re:Fascist America (Score:4, Insightful)
Our multinational capitalist oligarchs do not have to hold the reigns of power. They own the horse.
The government is bought and paid for via graft and 1st Amendment-protected campaign contributions.
Not to accept the obvious is hopelessly naive.
Re: (Score:2)
Our multinational capitalist oligarchs do not have to hold the reigns of power. They own the horse.
They don't have the power to keep the horse. Government has that.
Not to accept the obvious is hopelessly naive.
Appeal to naivety is a fallacy. Especially when it's wrong.
Re:Fascist America (Score:4, Insightful)
That is the textbook definition of fascism - where big business is run solely for the purpose of advancing government
Fixed it for you. Perhaps you should look at textbook cases of fascism in Europe and elsewhere. Was business or government in charge in Nazi Germany under Hitler? Fascist Italy under Mussolini? Argentina under Peron? Chile under Pinochet? Or modern cases such as Singapore or possibly mainland China? Government has always been in charge.
I think this distinction is important because it matters how we try to solve things. If we assume business was the power here, then stripping them of power (say via regulation) would fix the problem.
But if it's just a case of government selling its monopoly services at an exorbitant premium, then you just handled even more power to the real problem. I think that is what is happening here. There's nothing keeping government from continuing to sell its services. They'll just be able to charge even higher prices than they currently do.
For example, someone cited the bank bailouts as evidence of big business power. So how did the banks, desperate for capital, manage to force governments all over the world to release vast amounts of public funds? They didn't. It was another opportunity for government officials to profitably play winners and losers, while simultaneously appearing to "do something" about a huge financial crisis. Well, we're still suffering from the fallout of that banking crisis and the subsequent "solutions", but at least the politicians are doing fine.
OTOH, if big businesses really were too powerful, then cutting government spending means that they lose a vast gravy train which helps fund their power.
So needless to say, I'm in favor of cutting government spending whether or not government is the more overly strong party or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fascist America (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually I think it shows that they are getting more and more scared - which can only be because the people are getting more and more agitated. These folks act in reaction to perceived threats to them and their jobs. If they are cracking down by trying to pass these over-reaching laws it can only mean that they are losing a large amount of control and power on this front. On one hand it is good, I believe in power to the people - though within reason, but on the other hand it brings us one step closer to an Orwellian state which is scary.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One step closer to fascism.
Closer? What are the five tenets of fascism:
1. Nationalism (Patriotism)
Exalting the nation (or race) above all else, and promoting cults of unity, strength and purity. "We're number one! We're number one!"
Totalitarianism
2. The State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. In less academic terms, if you're not a patriot, you're the enemy. And a patriot is defined as, well, whatever the state tells you it's defined as.
3. National corporatism (and various o
Re: (Score:2)
P.S. Apologies, I forgot the quotes in my copy-pasta off Wikipedia. Much of the descriptions provided here are from the website, while the analysis is my own.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, what is going on in the US now certainly looks like the precursor to Fascism. It is not there yet though, but only by quantitative measure, qualitatively it is pretty close. I grew up in Germany, Fascism is a bit more drastic than what is going on on average in the US now, it certainly matches the extremes though. So, do something now or explain to future generation why you failed to do so. And no, the US will not be rescued by the free world. Freeing relatively small Germany was already almost infeas
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting harder for me to discern the difference between fascism and socialism these days, especially with all the hybrids cropping up in the world.. they definitely contrast with the more traditional socialism seen in North Korea for ex. Whether the power grab originated in the state or in a corporate oligarchy doesn't matter because the net result is the same: one uses the others' encroaching influence on the society to control it.
I wonder which corporations will end up being the 'jennings & rall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's nowhere near that simple, and there are plenty of counterexamples. Both ideologies enslave..
Re: (Score:2)
Both ideologies enslave..
If you want to trivialize the word 'enslave' in such a manner, then one could say "civilization enslaves." Lord of the Flies. . .
Being a part of any society comes at the cost of restrictions upon one's freedom. The question is, "which restrictions are good?" Not, "are restrictions good?" It's the restrictions we place upon ourselves and enforce through government that allow us to transcend the greater restrictions nature imposes on us. Only through discipline can we be free.
Re: (Score:2)
It shouldn't, in my opinion, limit your freedoms to belong to society. Then again, most people mistakenly define the word "freedom." What should be restricted is liberties. This isn't a matter of simple semantics but is an important difference to point out and be aware of. I guess the best way to put it is that I'm free to kill you, I have that freedom. That is the way that it should be. I'm free to kill you but I'm not at liberty to do so. There will be consequences for that but my freedom isn't restricted
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, odd, that. Many dismissively use "ah, that's just semantics" yet, beyond grunt, gesture, posture, facial expression, semantics is all we have left with which attempt communication with another.
So I think you make a useful distinction, to help increase clarity of thought by using correct word.
I think Patrick Henry chose his words carefully: "Give me liberty...."
Re: (Score:2)
Someone insisting you voluntarily surrender something is an oxymoron and still taking something from you. I think that if you're being asked to surrender something, no matter how trivial, it is best to ensure that the communication is clear. There are some principles that are so strong that you have to be clear that they're boundaries and freedom is a very important thing to not let go of. Rights and liberties will be taken away as governments only grow in power, I'll concede those but there are already eno
Because modern "socialism" is not socialism. (Score:2)
In most cases it is corporate fascism masquerading itself as socialism. It starts up with Obama administration which is clearly a fascist government, yet media lie us about it calling them "liberal" or "socialist". The same in EU - all their commissars are corporate sock puppets, yet everyone calls them socialist. The same with greek government giving in to Goldman Sachs.
Corporation don't care if it is "left" or "right". Their only concern is money. JP Morgan and Walmart earn gobs of money on foodstamps pr
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that any attempt to build such a thing inevitably leads to dictatorship.
Re: (Score:2)
My point was that any attempt to build such a thing inevitably leads to dictatorship.
No, it doesn't.
I know it is cool to bash religion on /., and the Catholic Church in particular, but the pope, which grew up in a totalitarian country (John Paul II) stated 20 years ago:
As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.
It is possible if voters either agree on a set of totalitarian principles, or simply do not care. It seems that this is what is happening now in the US. I do not see mass protests against the Patriot Act, Guantanamo, War on Drugs, all computer-related discrimination and restrictions. It is also not popular enough among voters
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, please, spare us the unhelpful cliches and doom-saying. There are problems with government, but there have always been problems with government in the US. We deal with them as they come up and move on. If you think this is "fascism", you really know nothing about fascism. But, then, stupidity like yours is nothing new either among the voting public, and we have survived that and thrived despite of it for two centuries.
you want to talk abuse... (Score:1)
this just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! Laws too dense for average citizens to understand, too vague to prevent massive abuse! Please. You're all felons. You haven't been prosecuted because you haven't pissed anyone off enough to become one, but all I need to do is record you going about your daily business for a week, and I'll find enough dirt to keep you locked up for a long time. Every. Last. One of you. Except perhaps the person who can't read this, because they're in a coma, in a hospital bed. And that poor, poor bastard is only avoiding his fate for as long as his bank account continues to pay off his mortgages and student loans. Once the money runs out, yeah... he's gonna be a felon too.
The law has ceased to have any relevance of any kind whatsoever for principled and ethical people. You cannot follow all the laws, you don't even know all of them, and you're not supposed to, and even if you did manage this collossal feat that even our own government can't accomplish with all of its resources... interpreting the law is also a crime. Ha ha. And telling someone else what you've learned? Practicing law without a license... another crime.
We're all criminals. We just haven't been caught.
Re:this just in (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. It's not about being able to arrest everybody. They can't arrest everybody, and they don't want to arrest everybody.
It's about being able to arrest anybody.
Re: (Score:3)
You make a good point, but I'd argue with you on their inability to arrest "everybody" The fact of the matter is, they already have over 1% of the population in prison. Maybe they can't technically get everyone, but they sure as hell are trying.
Re: (Score:2)
... they already have over 1% of the population in prison. Maybe they can't technically get everyone, but they sure as hell are trying.
Interestingly, I wonder what the tipping point is when the US simply cannot afford to put any more people into incarceration. I wonder how much tax as a percentage is spent on putting people into prison?
Re: (Score:3)
It's nearly bankrupting several states. Most notably California, the most prosperous state in the union.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact of the matter is, they already have over 1% of the population in prison.
Technically, 0.7%, but it's a very misleading statistic. 9.2% of blacks are in prison right now. Now, I'd love to hear an argument that explains how 70% of the prison population isn't white, while making up only 20.04% of the general population. The author's original point wasn't that they want to arrest everybody -- it's that they want the abilty to arrest anyone. And they certainly show a strong preference towards arresting certain classes of citizens. Mind you, that's 9.2% right now. That doesn't count p
Simple answer (Score:1)
Now, I'd love to hear an argument that explains how 70% of the prison population isn't white....
It is because they are not white.
Bonus! Guess why 91.5% of the prison population isn't male.
Re:this just in (Score:5, Informative)
The other significant portion of the story is that blacks are far more impoverished than whites, on average. " In 2010, 27.4 percent of blacks and 26.6 percent of Hispanics were poor, compared to 9.9 percent of non-Hispanic whites and 12.1 percent of Asians." [2] Poverty has a strong correlation to violent crime and drug use. "Nonviolent drug offenders now account for about one-fourth of all inmates in the United States, up from less than 10 percent in 1980. " [3] This figure does not include crimes which are committed to support a drug addiction.
Interestingly, violent crime rates are similar in impoverished black and white neighborhoods. "The violent crime rate in highly disadvantaged Black areas was 22 per 1,000 residents, not much different from the 20 per 1,000 rate in similar white communities." [4] This means that despite the proven police bias, for violent crimes, only 2 per 1000 more blacks are convicted of violent crimes as compared to whites in impoverished neighborhoods.
In summary... 50 years after Martin Luther King, Jr., we still have significant racial bias in American Culture. However, we have come a long way as compared to even 25 years ago. As we continue to improve as a nation, and treat others not based on their racial makeup, I believe the poverty inequality will begin to equalize in this nation. We still have a big problem with racism in the US. The racism issue is slowly improving, but there are practical and non-racist reasons why the incarceration rates differ so dramatically between whites and blacks. You don't enslave a population of people for hundreds of years and then turn around, snap your fingers, and suddenly have racial, economic, financial, and social equality. Repairing the damage that was done takes time. Now if our prison system could be more interested in healing instead of retribution...
Interesting Note: There is growing evidence that Lead is the cause of the majority of the violent crime. [5] If this is true, this may explain why the violent crime rates are similar--impoverished people are more likely to be exposed to lead, but impoverished blacks are just as likely to be exposed as whites.
[1] http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/08/09/blacks-hispanics-still-more-likely-to-get-traffic-tickets-in-illinois/ [cbslocal.com] [2] http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/ [umich.edu]
[3] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/269208/prison-math-and-war-drugs-veronique-de-rugy [nationalreview.com]
[4] http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/badcomm.htm [osu.edu]
[5] http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/01/lead-crime-link-gasoline [motherjones.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Young African-American males commit murders at a rate a hundred times larger than the general population. You can't explain that away with "bias"; there is something profoundly wrong with the subculture they live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, Lacey Act, (16 U.S.C. 3371–3378), makes it illegal to posses, transport, etc etc, any plant or animal or fish that is illegal to posses or transport in by US law, Indian law, OR ANY FOREIGN NATION'S LAW. This means I can catch and possess a fish that is legal in one state, in the state that it is legal in, but still be arrested because it is illegal in a different state or even a foreign country.
We are all felons, because there are so many laws on so many things that we cannot possibly stay on
Right on! (Score:2)
So many people don't understand this; that there are so many laws that you can't possibly understand. Just about everyone is guilty if the Feds dig deep enough.
Re: (Score:2)
"Know ye the truth, and the truth shall set you free."
Right. Thanks, anyway. [grin]
I have to guess that it's good to know the state of play, but too often lately I almost think I'd prefer not to know just how bad it is. A bit of bliss about now would go a long way.
Write to your representatives! (Score:5, Informative)
I’m a constituent calling on you to reform the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. 1030. This law contains vague language that broadly criminalizes accessing a computer "without authorization," carries heavy-handed penalties, and shows no regard for whether an act was done to further the public good. We saw how these laws could be abused in the case of Aaron Swartz, a recently-deceased 26-year-old coder and social activist who was hounded by the Justice Department in a relentless and unjust felony prosecution.
The CFAA needs three critical fixes: first, terms of service violations must not be considered crimes. Second, if a user is allowed to access information, it should not be a crime to access that data in a new or innovative way -- which means commonplace computing techniques that protect privacy or help test security cannot be illegal. And finally, penalties must be made proportionate to offenses: minor violations should be met with minor penalties.
While it is too late to intervene on behalf of Aaron, it’s not too late to ensure that this harm is not done to future social justice activists and security researchers. Please hold a Congressional hearing to examine the ongoing abuses of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and similar laws, and champion reform so that the potential punishments fit the crimes.
You can write to them easily here: https://www.eff.org/aarons-law [eff.org]
Take the time to add a note to the end of the boilerplate about how you WILL NOT vote for them if they don't act.
Senators and Representatives, even somebody like me who doesn't follow all things politics-related can still see how you vote and how well you represent my interests via http://www.opencongress.org/ [opencongress.org] , at the very least. Just remember, we are watching.
Re: (Score:2)
You can write to them easily here:
And they can just as easily reply with a form letter, feeding your letter into a database to extract keywords, which is then used to build a report that the legislator may read from time to time to figure out how popular something is.
Take the time to add a note to the end of the boilerplate about how you WILL NOT vote for them if they don't act.
Form letter democracy at its finest. I'm sure it'll get plenty of attention, like all the other form letters submitted to Congress have. You wanna make a difference? Get a pen and a piece of paper. That gets noticed. E-mail? Lulz. It's spam to them.
Senators and Representatives, even somebody like me who doesn't follow all things politics-related can still see how you vote
Yeah, you either get to vote
Re: (Score:1)
They are not buying the politicians. They are buying our vote. Or more correctly, we are selling our vote. 98% of us. The politician is simply the intermediary.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And they can just as easily reply with a form letter
A former staffer once told me the key to getting an actual human being to craft a response. It's possible that in the years since they've clued into this technique, but I doubt it. The key, as he told it, was never to write about a single issue. They had form letters for basically any issue you might care about. If, instead, you wrote about two issues with absolutely no connection, it forced a staffer to craft a response (often from multiple form letters.) If your second issue was really obscure, it might e
Re: (Score:2)
What typically happens when you write to these asshats is they pass the letter on to a lowly state official to answer. I have answered many a congressional letters from the public that would have gotten them a faster answer had they contacted me directly. You see, once a congressional comes down we answer back to the congress critter who in turn copies that response back to the person. The same happens on the federal level. They pass it off to anyone else to answer, usually the same agency the person is whi
Conservative reaction to shooting foot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Actually, it is:
Liberal reaction: shoot the other foot.
Conservative reaction: shoot a poor person in the foot.
Libertarian reaction: allow someone else to shoot themselves in the foot.
Socialist reaction: cut off all feet so that no one can shoot themselves in the foot.
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, it is:
Liberal reaction: shoot the other foot.
Conservative reaction: shoot a poor person in the foot.
Libertarian reaction: allow someone else to shoot themselves in the foot.
Socialist reaction: cut off all feet so that no one can shoot themselves in the foot.
I thought it was funny.
Re:Conservative reaction to shooting foot (Score:5, Interesting)
Since it's just a draft, I'm not actually certain who wrote it. It doesn't have a tracking number yet. This being the House, we can infer that the chairman is OK with it, and he's a Republican, but he's not necessarily the author.
The only clue I can find is in a file name included in the document:
C:\DOCUME~1\HRBRAZ~1\APPLIC~1\SOFTQUAD\XMETAL\5.5\GEN\C\SR_005.XML
but I don't see anybody on the committee whose name fits "HRBRAZ~1" (and it's probable that it's somebody's secretary or legislative assistant; it might even be the staffer who's responsible for maintaining the XML [via Softquad, on an elderly Windows installation]).
Re:Conservative reaction to shooting foot (Score:5, Insightful)
Well it is most certainly not a congress critter as they are way to stupid to think and write anything 'legal' themselves. So the bigger question is, who has lobbied for the terms in the proposed law?
Re: (Score:2)
Now I wish I hadn't used up all my mod points on other threads.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd guess not, since the ~1 implies that there was more stuff there that got cut so that it could fit into 8 characters, a requirement for older Windows systems.
So it might be somebody with a name like Brazile, who just happens to be a local politician in DC. It's not her (her first name is Donna, and she works in local politics, not on Capitol Hill). It could conceivably be a relative, though it's more likely that it's somebody else whose name begins with "braz".
Re: (Score:2)
Go on! Keep thinking in terms of dualities and always blame wrong things on the other side. Not having to deal with reality will make you feel better about yourself (and self esteem is important).
Needs a new title (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they could change the title to this bill to the "Piss on Aaron Swartz's Grave Act of 2013"?
Seriously, what did you expect. The noose always gets tighter.
Re:Needs a new title (Score:4, Informative)
Well, yeah. They're naming it after him because his death dropped the pants on these asshats. So naturally, they adjusted the law to prevent further de-pantsing events rather than admit that their crappy, over-vague, law which criminalizes basically any use of a computer indirectly led to the death of a talented young man who's crime was basically annoying authorities in the 3rd degree.
Re:Needs a new title (Score:5, Informative)
Those changes are even worse than that. They basically allow the government to seize your home solely upon the basis of a claim of conspiracy of an already arrested person awaiting trial and a reduced sentence. Basically these laws have been written to silence political activist who use computers for any political activity.
Most people use their computers in their homes, their homes provide the facility for using that computer hence, under the law can be confiscated regardless of the lack of any losses or gains, just upon the claims of conspiracy. As conspiracy does not require the evidence of any crimes being committed purely the testimony of an individual seeking a reduced sentence ie. the loss of their homes and many years in prison, you can see how this can be readily abused to target any individual disliked by the current political authority.
Breach of contract is a civil matter but under this Law if the contract is basically on a computer it is a criminal offence. To access the contract you must adhere to the conditions of contract, if you breach the conditions of contract, your access to the contract is now a criminal act. Even more insanely it sets no limits on the 'Terms of Service' of access to computer network. This enables the wordings of "Term of Service' to ensure all users breach the "Terms of Service" in normal use, thus allowing the entity responsible for the "Terms of Service" the power of prosecution over all of it's users.
Straight up this is a political attack targeted at computer geeks and nerds, basically the majority of slashdot users and at silencing them because of their greater political influence in the internet age.
Where's the outrage? (Score:3)
I'm guessing Google, Wikipedia and friends aren't going to blackout their websites over this one.
Massive Overreach, Then Seeming To Relent (Score:3, Insightful)
They propose something completely over the top, so that when they appear to reconsider and listen to the public, we are all mollified to let them get precisely what they wanted in the first place.
Join the ACLU and EFF, your NRA for the 21st century.
than? (Score:1)
I know this goes against the great American trend for using words with specific interpretations -- like 'than' and 'which', or indeed 'like', 'than', and 'which' -- as all-purpose conjunctions, but shouldn't it be 'as' here?
"making you just as guilty if you plan to 'violate' the CFAA than if you actually did so. "
The Last Thing This Law Needed (Score:1)
What have we done? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
nt (Score:5, Insightful)
Dear americans:
Fuck you
Sincerely, the feds.
and web sites can copy this store (Score:2)
http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/1axk4y/when_they_open_tomorrow_im_going_to_see_how_many/ [reddit.com]
with the same BS and if you don't pay or use a pop up blocker (site will be coded to pop a pay screen when you try to quit or go to a different page)
You can be the next CFAA felon. And the site will clam that fixing the pop up bypass will cost over 5K.
racketeering (Score:2)
Yay! They'll finally stop those **AA groups from sending extortive legal threats over song downloads! ...wait, why are you looking at me like that?
Orin Kerr on draft of new CFAA (Score:5, Informative)
Orin Kerr from the Volokh Conspiracy has this to say about the "new" draft CFAA:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/03/25/house-judiciary-committee-new-draft-bill-on-cybersecurity-is-mostly-dojs-proposed-language-from-2011/ [volokh.com]
"Stop taking DOJ’s language from back in 2011 and packaging it as something new. Based on a quick read, it seems that the amendments for 1030 in the new draft are mostly copied from a bill that Senator Leahy offered (with substantial input from DOJ, as I understand it) back in November 2011. I criticized that language here. The new circulating draft also adopts the sentencing enhancements (minus mandatories) and the proposed 1030a that DOJ advocated in May 2011. I criticized that initial DOJ language here. (There’s also a breach notification provision in the new language, but I haven’t followed that issue closely; I don’t know if that proposal is also based on old language.)
In some ways, the new circulating language is even more severe and harsh than DOJ wanted even in the Lori Drew case. For example, the proposed language would make it a felony crime to violate Terms of Service if the TOS violation:
(I) involves information that exceeds $5,000 in value;
(II) was committed for purposes of obtaining sensitive or non-public information of an entity or another individual (including such information in the possession of a third party), including medical records, wills, diaries, private correspondence, financial records, photographs of a sensitive or private nature, trade secrets, or sensitive or non-public commercial business information;
(III) was committed in furtherance of any criminal act in violation United States or of any State, unless such state violation would be based solely on the obtaining of information without authorization or in excess of authorization; or
(IV) involves information obtained from a computer used by or for a government entity;
This language is really, really broad. If I read it correctly, the language would make it a felony to lie about your age on an online dating profile if you intended to contact someone online and ask them personal questions. It would make it a felony crime for anyone to violate the TOS on a government website. It would also make it a federal felony crime to violate TOS in the course of committing a very minor state misdemeanor. If there is a genuine argument for federal felony liability in these circumstances, I hope readers will enlighten me: I cannot understand what they are.
In short, this is a step backward, not a step forward. This is a proposal to give DOJ what it wants, not to amend the CFAA in a way that would narrow it. "
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I was facing multiple felonies for using a computer to "seriously annoy" someone (that is the applicable text of the computer tampering law). I sent a single prank email. Seriously. Not threats of violence or anything just one of those paste-someone's-face-onto-an-embarrasing-image things. I was young and dumb, yes-- but these laws allow your door to be kicked in and your family held at gunpoint for some of the stupidest reasons. I took a plea for a designated misdemeanor, but I have criminal record no
you should not get less time for robbing 7-11 (Score:4, Insightful)
you should not get less time for robbing 7-11 or some other store.
Let make a car analogy
Let say that you find a gas pump that does not force you to pre pay and is wide open for any one to just start pumping gas is about the same thing as longing into a system with no security.
But you can get less time for the Gasoline theft and you did steal something vs even just logging in / copying or looking at data that is still there. Unlike gas that is now missing from the station tank.
Control the information too... (Score:3)
Everywhere you turn, the government is trying to control everything. Information (its secrets), the weapons, the people... the people are increasingly poor and less educated with a higher rate of 'criminals' behind bars than anywhere else in the world. Money has been well under control for a long time. Speaking of which, I hear something is going on with Europe's money beginning in Spain.
We live in interesting times.
Re: (Score:2)
We live in interesting times.
"May you live in interesting times" was used as a curse for good reason...
It's disturbing that most people growing up right now will look back on this as the good old days without even pausing to consider that adults of the time were under a great deal of stress, and will mimic the mistakes made in the 90s/00s in hope of returning society to the happy, trusting time they recall.
Mike Masnik (Score:4, Insightful)
This story originates from a TechDirt posting by Mike Masnik.
Mike is generally a pretty perceptive reporter, however he occasionally jumps the gun when posting commentary about preliminary documentation such as draft bills or revisions to such bills. I lost a lot of credibility with my Congressman in reacting to a story of his related to a revision being made to the ECPA.
From that experience I learned to not pay attention to his reports on draft bills and similar preliminary documents because it's too early in the legislative process to determine if they have any weight or chance of becoming embedded in actual legislation.
SO this may be worth following, but I don't think it's worth writing to a Congressman about yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Read some of the other stories. There's been quite a lot of traffic around this stories on a lot of law stories. The Volokh conspiracy site doesn't like it either, and pretty much every article I've seen on it - whether its Time, Guardian or anyone else - thinks it's either bad or the worst thing ever. Definitely don't jump the gun, but in this case, the gun has been shot a while ago.
Changing my stance on term limits.. (Score:2)
Don't worry, I'm sure... (Score:2)
Repeal the trokia of harmful laws (Score:3)
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Digital Millennium Copyright Act
USA PATRIOT act
It is the bane of the civilization. We don't need them. Period.
they should call this: (Score:1)
The "give all of our power to actual malicious hackers act". I mean seriously. If they are going to create a legal environment where any arbitrary person can be prosecuted on an even slimmer pretext for computer crime than already exists, then what this will do is create a HUGE opportunity for actual computer criminals to FRAME innocent people for crimes.
Oh, and don't say "well they will just not prosecute those" because if you use a little game theory, you can abuse the hell out of that attitude and us
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe we need a 4th branch of government specifically to remove laws from the books, stop unjust enforcement/execution of the law, and instruct the courts to re-interpret existing laws.
Uh...that's called the Supreme Court. That is literally exactly what it is designed to do
Re:4th Branch of Government (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The Constitution's supremacy clause clearly establishes that the Constitution trumps all other laws in the US. The court has to operate under this rule.
This means that they cannot function without first resolving any conflict between the Constitution and the questions on the case they are ruling on.
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad there's now a cheat code. You only need to say "National Security" and courts can't review the legality of something.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you live in the good ol' US of A, so you need to beef up your knowledge of how the SCOTUS operates.
You can appeal to SCOTUS to hear your case and they can refuse.
If you read slashdot regularly you should have seen the following stories: Tenenbaum [slashdot.org] and Thomas [slashdot.org]
Both were refused; meaning they are screwed.
No, SCOTUS is not at all like the proposal of a fourth power.
Re: (Score:1)
You douche - you're going to force me to browse at a setting that hides a lot of comments. WTF should people have to scroll down half a page or more, because you're posting another copy/paste rant? Stay on subject, douche!
Re: (Score:2)
You douche - you're going to force me to browse at a setting that hides a lot of comments. WTF should people have to scroll down half a page or more, because you're posting another copy/paste rant? Stay on subject, douche!
I wonder if this couldn't be solved with something like Greasemonkey. Find out comments that are already at -1 and completely erase the DOM nodes for those that fulfill certain extra criteria, like being very long or containing some well-known crap.
Don't reply to the early trolls (Score:2)
Is this the partially off-topic subthread or the wholly off-topic subthread? You really should not put the wholly off-topic one at the start, so I'll assume this is the only partially off-topic subthread, or else hope this comment fixes that.
Obligatory SMBC : http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2923#comic