Rep. Mike Rogers Dismisses CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeter On the Internet" 222
gale the simple writes "Mike Rodgers made a minor splash Tuesday when he decided to liken CISPA opponents to 14-year-old basement dwellers. The EFF, naturally, picked up on this generalization and asked everyone to let the representative know that it is not just the 14-year-olds that care about privacy."
Hey... (Score:5, Funny)
I resemble that remark!
Re:Hey... (Score:5, Insightful)
From the mouth of babes, as they say. Something tells me that fourteen year old tweeters such as yourself know infinitely more about how the web works than this Rogers character. Not as if he cares though, right?
And editors... Fuck it, if you haven't improved after so many mistakes there's just no point in bothering to point them out any more.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Not sure. I haven't poured through the draft of CISPA to know really how good or bad it is, but I have to have heaps of respect for a congressman with enough knowledge of pop culture, memes, and the internet in general to string that one liner together.
Seriously, watch the video, this is the first government representative who seems to have any clue what the internet is, internet subculture, and communication in general. He makes up the comment off the cuff and then follows with a clarification in "grandm
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, the Internet.
Where the men are boys
The women are men
And dissidents are 14 year old Tweeters
Last link is broken (Score:2)
Re:Last link is broken (Score:5, Informative)
I think the summary needs to clarify: this is Michigan representative Mike Rogers, not Alabama representative Mike Rogers.
Re: (Score:2)
They are both politicians. Do they really have different opinions or do they just say that they do?
Just asking, I'm not familiar with U.S. politics but I assume that the "representatives" are pretty much like everywhere else.
It makes a difference as to who can vote him out of office.
For instance, it's people where I live rather than people in Alabama.
Granted, I've already been voting against him...
EFF link broken (Score:4, Informative)
Re:EFF link broken (Score:4, Funny)
Link to EFF needs fixing (Score:5, Informative)
50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Usually, when a politician backs crap like this (and especially when they say really ignorant things like this guy did), a file all about them shows up at their office filled with data found via legal access.
I just have to assume that there is some heavy lobbying pressure on this guy from corporate America - corp America is increasingly dependent on Big Data and they are against anything - anything at all - that will limit their precious data. Through in the whole "national security - stopping the next marathon bomber or the next school shooting" and you have a recipe for more intrusions on our privacy.
It doesn't help that there are millions of US citizens voluntarily giving up their privacy via Facebook.
Re:50 something (Score:4, Interesting)
But even the motto of the state he was elected to serve spells it out...."Audemus jura nostra defendere" - We Dare Defend Our Rights, and here he is wanting to surrender everyones to the corporate overlords.
Re: (Score:2)
But even the motto of the state he was elected to serve spells it out...."Audemus jura nostra defendere" - We Dare Defend Our Rights, and here he is wanting to surrender everyones to the corporate overlords.
There's no contradiction... it's only the matter of correctly defining who are "we" and the motto still holds true.
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
Statements like yours are why Hamilton was so against the Bill of Rights from the beginning. In no way is the purpose of the Constitution to enumerate the rights of the citizens. It's sad to see that he was right.
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
From Federalist Papers #84:
I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?
Re: (Score:3)
OH SNAP! That's right Chihowa, you show that OP what's what about Hamilton. That trash-talking Chihowa didn't know SHIT about Hamilton, but you dun took the words STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE and threw it all up in his business.
That'll show 'em.
Re: (Score:3)
I know. And he never saw it coming! Sucker!
Re: (Score:3)
It falls under the aegis of the Fourth Amendment. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.
I, at least, define the methods they would espouse to be invasive and ineffectual. Therefore unreasonable.
If you have no problem living in a panopticon, great. Good for you!
But this sick little subculture of invading EVERYONE'S lives with some vain and vague notion of, SOMEHOW, making people "safe" (when it accomplishes no such thing) needs to die.
Stake through the heart.
Cut off its head.
Burn the remains.
Sow th
Re: (Score:2)
(when it accomplishes no such thing)
Or even if it does make people safe.
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
No one is attacking your rights. Just your privacy. I know people don't like to hear it but their is no Constitutional right to privacy. What privacy you do have is by statute.
Keep this in mind - in a democracy, anything that is not subject to a law to say otherwise:
1. it is allowed for the citizens
2. it is forbidden for the state/government.
So spare me with the "Constitution doesn't grant you this right" or cease pretending US is a democracy.
(I'll be counting the replies recycling the "by Constitution, US is a republic, not a democracy". I do hope I'll have none to count).
Re: (Score:2)
The US is *not* a democracy.
It's a democratic republic.
Re: (Score:2)
The US is *not* a democracy.
It's a democratic republic.
And a democratic republic is not... well... democratic?
Let me rephrase: in a democratic republic, does one need a statute to grant rights to the one?
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The US is *not* a -DIRECT- democracy.
It's a democratic republic.
LMFTFY.
Your ignorance aside, yes, it is, a form of democracy.
The word Democracy does not in and of itself imply ONLY the form known as a "direct democracy".
The phrase "democratic repbulic" means exactly jack squat as far as "proving" we are not a democracy.
It's the equivalent of saying "The number 2 is *not* a number. It's an even number."
a democratic republic, or a representative democracy, or a parlamentary republic/democracy...they all mean the same damn thing. semantics aside, these constant "its not a
Re: (Score:2)
In this country we have the illusion of democracy nothing more. Its been that way since the beginning. The scary part of our democracy is that we are convinced that we live in one. Nobody seems to see past the lies.
Re: (Score:2)
Keep this in mind - in a democracy, anything that is not subject to a law to say otherwise: 1. it is allowed for the citizens 2. it is forbidden for the state/government.
Who says? That's true of some democracies, but it's not the only model of democracy. In some democracies everything is forbidden unless there's a law to say it's permitted. They're still democracies because the public has a say in what's permitted or forbidden.
Re: (Score:2)
Way to construct a straw man and burn it down, girl. Can you please show me were did I say: "democracy IS..."?
I said "... in a democracy... " (it's like saying: "A required condition(s) for democracy is/are...").
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The 9th Amendment would like to have a word with you concerning your lack of a proper Constitutional education:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
That's why no one likes to hear it. It's wrong, and only ignorant morons think we have no rights other than those listed in the USC.
Re: (Score:2)
To the people and the States. There is no guarantee of privacy in the Constitution. Find it for me. To say that just because it's not limited by the Constitution it exists is just silly. The stuff not covered by the Constitution is under the control of the States and the people through their elected representatives.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Ditto. 50 years old and more conservative than this statist f**k-tard will ever be.
The GOP should be the natural party of individual (and states') rights, but they keep nominating fascistic shits like this.
I wonder why they're called the stupid party?
Re: 50 something (Score:2)
Having sat through several election cycles, Mike Rogers is your typical, average Republican... Like your mom or grandma. He's not pro-big-business... He's too easily distracted by "think of the children" arguments. He knows we need to protect kids an this law would do that... But like your grandma, he's not clever enough to read between the lines and catch that the bill is REALLY a massive handover to big business to collect stuff about us.
Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just sad. I can remember when the Republicans really were the party of small government (small in budget, small in intrusiveness, except regarding sex where they lost all sanity), and the Democrats really were the anti-censorship, anti-racism party, and the mainstream of both parties was proud of America. WTF happened in 20 years?
Re: (Score:2)
WTF happened in 20 years?
You grew up and stopped believing their lies. Nothing else changed though.
Re: (Score:2)
Democrats were the [...] anti-racism party
Ah, the 1860s...
Re: (Score:3)
for what its worth, democrats were never "the anti racism" party.
they did become the party of the minorities, but only after the fact, and largely due to the migration of the southern democrats out of the party and the moderate republicans into it (and i say this as someone who usually votes democratic).
if you study your history, it was the republican party that fought for abolition, and the republican party who fought to civil rights. it was then in the midst of and because of the vietnam war and the socia
Re: (Score:2)
(note that I compressed about 40 years of posturing and party migration into 1 run on sentence)
Who do you trust more? (Score:5, Insightful)
Teens in their basement, or slimebag politicians in washington?
At least we know teenagers in their basements aren't taking money from special corporate intrests trying to fuck us all over.
Re:Who do you trust more? (Score:5, Insightful)
the basement teen in almost all instances.
The teen in the basement knows more about real life than the Congressional idiot that will only take meeting with people who will contribute to his/her campaign.
Re:Who do you trust more? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it humorous that the politician can't even insult us properly.
It's either 14 year olds, OR dudes living in their parent's basement.
Nonetheless, privacy is important to me because I'm in a better position to protect my children online as they begin to use the Internet more and more.
Re:can't even insult us properly. (Score:3)
Heh I'll reply to you. Yeah, this one is a pretty bad mis-step.
I won't even use logic because that's too hard for this person. Let's stay at the Pre-logic level that the dev. psychologists say works for children.
Age 14. Really?! SO many things wrong with that age metaphor. Let's try to keep it obvious.
14 year olds can't vote.
So what are they doing, brainwashing their older brothers and sisters?!
Re: (Score:3)
Who do you trust more, really?
Teens in their basement, or slimebag politicians in washington?
Well I definitely who I trust more, but I still wouldn't shake their hand.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, many of those basement dwelling 14 year olds will vote in the next election. Just sayin'.
Although some will be eligible, few will vote. And "Rep." Rogers knows that.
Look at it the other way (Score:5, Insightful)
My first thought was...after sitting down and discussing it with his 14 year old nephew, it must all have gone over Rodgers' head, and he didn't learn anything. Hey, next time let the kid write the legislation, leave it to the experts.
corporate bubble (Score:3)
The us congress need less Reps like Rogers. They need people that will actually go outside the corporate bubble.
Re: corporate bubble (Score:2)
THAT IS THE PROBLEM, isn't it?
This is a guy normal Slashdotters would like. (I'm from Michigan) he's somebody your patents would vote for. He's an average guy who had a small business and had plenty of run-ins with the big businesses in that time. Normally he would be looking out for us little people... Except when you get in those "bleeding hearts" movements where the whole thing is a trap. Can you give a bill like this to your mom or dad (but not Randle Munroe's mom) and expect that she would understand
Re: corporate bubble (Score:2)
Normal people don't normally think how things are written to be used against them ... When it's supposed to protect kids. Normal people don't really consider life of the "not normal" people at all. If you don't have mom + dad and "e" kids and 2 pets with 2 cars and a house, you quickly start dropping off the radar of how "normal" people should act.
Re: (Score:2)
yes of course threatening or killing politicians is criminal, diluted poison or otherwise
Is offering a politician a cup of coffee a felony?
I doubt he's wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But what does it matter how old I am?
If you're 14 years old you're too young to vote, so Congressman Rogers doesn't care what you think.
And he assumes none of the people who are able to vote feel the same way you do.
Rogers Whines Like a 14 Year Old (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly, 14 year olds tend not to be remotely aware of the evils of bills like CISPA. In my experience it's the best and brightest segment of society that's united against this nonsense. On the other hand, 14 year olds are quite familiar with answering criticism with a false ad hominem attack.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Rogers Whines Like a 14 Year Old (Score:4, Interesting)
Watch the video. His 14 year old nephew was obviously very aware of the dangers of the bill, even tried talking sense into him.
It's kinda ironic. A 14 year old understand more about privacy and the ramifications of a bill than an elected politician. What's even more ironic is that said politician is the one that tells us about it.
Time for a Super PAC (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Time for a Super PAC (Score:5, Insightful)
They don't, but chops to you for heading towards a "managed" situation in politics.
It's a weird line they are following - on one hand if they bomb the masses with enough ads, they get their votes. In another way, they have got to be deathly afraid if the masses actually start coordinating votes. I could go on for 3,000 words but I'll stay short in this post. The basic point is, for the first time ever, Social Media can Coordinate votes to counter the advantage politicians have had of close access in the Capitol for a hundred years. Right now there's no platform for it. But so help us when there is, this grand Pres cycle will be a WHOLE NEW game.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As capture theory reveals: The decision-making process is controlled by small dedicated interests. Any large group has split loyalties that prevents them matching the influence of the fanatic/paid faction. US congress itself is an example of this. It also occurs after the common enemy has been defeated in a civil war or political revolution.
You've just described Green Peace, and possibly Wiki-leaks. How many donate to those organisations?
Re: (Score:2)
"If you want congressmen to take your opinion seriously, you need to speak in the only language they understand... votes."
That's an odd way to spell "dollars." Is it a foreign word?
14 year olds care about privacy? (Score:5, Insightful)
14 year olds care about privacy? Really? REALLY? Hello, there's a website we'd like to introduce you to Mr. Congresscritter. It's called Facebook. You should find out what happens there sometime.
Is it just me or has the rate of public officials mouthing off like children increased? Don't these people have any dignity anymore? (That last is a rhetorical question...)
Re:Mouthing Off (Score:2)
It's not just you, but I wouldn't slander the Kids!
(Have we forgotten that meme that fast, that all the cyber bills are For The Kids?!)
They are mouthing off, but not kids - some kind of weird way they think the "mood is right" and they can get away with it.
Any 3 of these 10 stories would have been career enders Back In The Day.
But there's some kind of magic going on - they can say *absolutely anything* and still keep their elected posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Dignity in Congress? Been watching the news lately?
The one who writes slashpolls? (Score:2)
Rep. Mike Rogers == Insensitive Clod
Dear Mike Rodgers (Score:2, Funny)
You have just funded your opposition, and if I didn't consider it a near-certainty that you were in a contrived electoral district that would re-elect you for anything short of being caught with a dead 14 year old in your bed, that would spell your doom.
As it stands, there's always some hope.
Re: (Score:2)
Just say he'll be on national TV and watch them come for the casting.
Typical... (Score:5, Funny)
They always do that sort of thing
pause....
Don't play their game! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother with the charade? It's not like people have any choice anyway.
Stereotypes and Vacuums (Score:4, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the man has something of a point. There are a lot of 14-year-old basement dwellers in the anti-CISPA crowd, and a lot of people who just want to get their entertainment without paying for it. In short, a significant number of the people who oppose CISPA are doing it for the wrong reasons. CISPA is wrong, but so are they.
Those of us who care about the real issues might do well to disassociate ourselves from the creepers and the pirates. Even they need protection, but let's not kid ourselves, that's more a matter of logistics than principle: protection is meaningless if it doesn't protect everyone, and so they get a pass in order to make it work at all. Their voices in this debate only harm the side they fight for. But this presents a problem: how the heck would a community like this disassociate itself from its less savory members?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe its because our ideas of property and ownership are changing and people just don't want to accept it. All of this content that is controlled by the wrong people, its time for that to end. the content belongs to the people not to corporations that have convinced people to to give away ownership of there creations. We need to quit being so selfish with our creations, they are meant to be shared and if you are going to make money by it, that will be decided by the people that experience your creations no
So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA (Score:3)
It's a shame he only cares about one part of the bill of rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a free internet can be dangerous in the wrong hands -- but of all people, a gun rights advocate should understand why that's not grounds for banning/controlling/censoring it.
Re: (Score:3)
My favorite is the 10th Amendment which is absolutely, totally ignored by Congress.
Bullshit all Around (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Politicians introduce legislation against common people's interests.
2. Initial concerns over privacy/abuse of power are voiced.
3. Companies of all sorts voice support, and how much it is needed.
4. Apparently clueless politicians make statements minimizing critics as somehow insignificant.
5. Huge outrage swells up from 'the people'
6. Politicians and Companies back-pedal
7. Last clueless politician stays the course.
8. Bill dies.
9. ???
10. Rince and Repeat
Re: (Score:2)
check my ID ... (Score:2)
Because I believe I am substantially older than 14 years old and I oppose the CISPA.
Obama has threatened to veto it (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm fairly sure the President of the USA is not a 14 year old tweeter.
Re: (Score:3)
The Washington Times? You have got to be kidding.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I actually watched that speech. It seemed like the President was pissed off about something or other that failed to pass. I was glad to see that my congressman actually listened to me and the others in his district instead of President Obama. I don't know if the President is aware of it or not but these congressmen have to run for office every once in a while and if they piss off the people in their district they don't get to keep that nice cushy job. I saw where one of his fellow Democrats in Congress
Re: (Score:3)
The Washington Times? You have got to be kidding.
Shhh . . . He thinks it's the same as the Post.
Surprise! (Score:2)
A congress-critter who doesn't understand legislation's effect on technology. Will wonders never cease!
Re: (Score:2)
I get that. What I don't get is why the staff they pay for with our tax money doesn't seem to have a clue either.
Companies' stance (Score:2)
He claims that Silicon Valley CEO's support this bill. Well, let's see. Google never took a stance, Facebook and Microsoft rescinded their support, while AT&T and Verizon (big surprise), IBM, Intel and McAfee support it (didn't Intel buy McAfee?)
So no, Silicon Valley CEO's do NOT all support it - and even if they did, it isn't a ringing endorsement against privacy concerns. After all, what does the CEO know about the technical ramifications? In many cases (esp. for long established companies), they ar
From what I can tell... (Score:3)
...Mike isn't going to be able to go after the 14 year old tweeter for a TOS violation under CFAA, as the TOS at Twitter do not seem to have a minimum age requirement that he would be violating.
As someone on the far side of 40 from the described 14 year old, I have to say that I appreciate that 14 year olds who are opposed to CISPA are aware that this will have an affect on their privacy, and are being vocal about it. It suggests that civic responsibility is recognized as part of one's personal sense of duty to our youth, which suggests that at least someone is paying attention to their school classes, which may be counter to what Mike expects of any of the public, much less the 14 year olds out there. It also suggests that a 14 year old is more aware of the issues involved than this sitting representative. While I think that's a positive reflection on our youth, I think it's a very poor reflection on at least one of our representatives in Congress.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if this dickhead knows that these 14 year olds will be old enough to vote in 4 more years? He'll probably needs someone to do the math for him.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it heartbreaking when 14 year olds have more concern for the ideals the country was built on than politicians that allegedly represent us?
Nothing new here (Score:2)
We already know Republicans are totally out of touch. Nothing new here. Move along.
Slander? (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/jimktrains/status/324711791034761216 [twitter.com]
@RepMikeRogers I wonder if calling me a 14yro in a basement & implying I'm uneducated&unprosperous bc I disagree with you counts as slander
Adults care about privacy too (Score:3)
I'm getting really tired of this shit (Score:3)
Every year or more often, it seems, we have yet another jaw-droppingly fascist and Orwellian proposition to fight.
Some wrinkly old dipshit psychopath completely disconnected from reality, at the behest of his (or her, but mostly his) corporate cronies, makes some astoundingly malevolent proposition to sacrifice the rights of everyone but himself and selected entitled individuals. We then have to step up and expend an enormous amount of time and energy battling to retain the rights we should be able to take for granted. Time and energy that could otherwise be used constructively.
If this becomes a big enough threat, the response needs to be alike to that of SOPA. Even after the people won, they rubbed it in: practically half the web went dark and DC went batshit. It's been little more than a year since then, have they already forgotten or has the dark lens of pure evil blinded them that much?
Re: (Score:2)
No. The response needs to look like the bloody (meant literally, not as an expletive) "Jasmine Revolution". We already responded to SOPA like we responded to SOPA, and where did it get us? They reintroduce the same goddamned steaming pile of corporate Christmas presents every year.
We need to reject this in a way that makes our leaders afraid to try it a 22nd time. We need to send the message that if you favor busine
How Republicans Think (Score:4, Informative)
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/17/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html [politicalwire.com]
Who's 14? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
From the point of view of the crybabies who wrote CISPa, a 14-year-old is practically an adult.
Devils Advocate (Score:2)
Wish I had a basement... (Score:2)
Wish I had a basement to stick my 14 year old in.
So much for privacy (Score:2)
It took me all of three minutes to isolate his Flash Cookie.
My my my. Just LOOK at what he's been doing!
So, which one is it? (Score:3)
Either he doesn't understand the implications of the bill, even after his 14 year old nephew (who quite obviously does) tried, and tried hard enough for him to remember it, to explain it to him.
Or he does understand it very well, but someone is spending enough to make him push it through.
So which is it, Representative? You incompetent or a ho?
You called me a 14 year old, don't wonder when I respond like one.
Here's a way to make him listen (Score:3)
The "14-year-old" crack is of course code for "the complainers don't count becase they don't donate money to anybody". IMHO, that's even more aggrevating.
So are you little angry about being insulted by this corporate puppet? Well, there is a way you can get back at him. Show your displeasure in a way he understand.
Donate money to his opponent. [actblue.com]
There's a Democrat trying to challenge Mike Rogers, by the name of Lance Enderle. I don't know too much [dailykos.com] about the guy, but he has apparently pledged to take no PAC money. So he may be a drooling pinhead, but if you donate he'll at least be your drooling pinhead, and not the RIAA's.
Re: (Score:2)
Who?
That's how it should be. When you hear the name of a representative or senator that you recognize, that person has been in office for a while. They should be ousted and brought back only after a term hiatus.