CISPA's Author Has Another Privacy-Killing Bill To Pass Before He Retires 138
Daniel_Stuckey writes: "You might remember House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, from his lovely, universally-hated CISPA cybersecurity bill that would have allowed nearly seamless information sharing between companies and the federal government. You might also remember him from his c'est la vie attitude towards civil liberties in general. Well, we've got some good news and some bad news: Rogers announced today that he won't seek re-election and is instead retiring from politics to start a conservative talk radio show on Cumulus. The bad news? He's got at least one terrible, civil liberties-killing bill to try to push through Congress before he goes. Like CISPA, the newly introduced 'FISA Transparency and Modernization Act,' seeks to make it easier for the federal government to get your information from companies."
Good Riddance... (Score:4, Insightful)
I just hope the voters in his Dist. see fit to vote for someone that believes more in the constitution.
Republican (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good Riddance... (Score:0, Insightful)
he is proof that just because you are republican doesn't mean you aren't a shitty liberal.
Re:Nice Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, the rightwing party proposes a fascist law, damn, that's shocking, must be media bias!
Re:Republican (Score:2, Insightful)
Worked for the FBI and now a politician...has this dude ever worked in the private sector in his life? Gotta love these loser Republicans who spend their whole life sucking the tax payer titty and then wanna talk about small government and shit. fuck. off.
Rebublican Conservative?? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why does every one of these people campaign on a platform of "government is the problem, reduce the size of the government!", and then once in office, immediately create bills that INCREASE the size of government, pry into your personal life such as who you sleep with, and if you're a woman, even when you can have sex, and generally make it so that government *is* indeed the problem because *they* made it so?
Re:I don't care about sharing information (Score:2, Insightful)
So you don't mind posting your CC numbers here, right? Because it's illegal for anyone else to use them it shouldn't matter to you.
Re:Nice Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, the rightwing party proposes a fascist law, damn, that's shocking, must be media bias!
It is, because it ignores the fact that members of the "leftwing party" also propose (and vote for) fascist laws all.
The.
Time.
Intellectual dishonesty at best, outright propaganda at worst.
Re:Republican (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems merely informative to me.
Re:Republican (Score:5, Insightful)
They only want 'limited' on things that sound like socialism -- you know, you how maintain a society.
For things like the army, or surveillance, or ensuring that their buddies at the golf course get the monopolies entrenched and copyright extended indefinitely ... then Republicans basically spend like drunken monkeys.
If it benefits big business, they'll roll over for it. If it benefits the poor or the working class, it is therefore 'evil'.
The fact their claims about trickle down economics haven't had any of the benefits they claim it will means that Republicans are either delusional, or know damned well they're taking the rest of the country for a ride.
Because they damned sure don't have a clue about what actually does help improve the economy.
Re:Nice Summary (Score:3, Insightful)
Just remember - you need both a left wing and a right wing to make the turkey fly.
Re: Nice Summary (Score:5, Insightful)
There is nothing socialist at all about a law making it mandatory to give our money to private insurance companies.
Re:Conservative?? (Score:4, Insightful)
That was pretty blathery, not to mention one-sided. There's a lot I could disagree with, but the thing that sticks out the most is that you've provided no evidence that liberals hate big government. It's true that liberals hate some things that government does, like being the aggressor in a foreign war, or acting corruptly, but the general response from liberals is simply to make noise to try and get the government to stop doing things. But in general liberals see the government as a force for good, so more of it tends to be better, as long as the "right people" (i.e., other liberals) are in charge to prevent it from doing the things they don't like.
In contrast, conservatives have a principled opposition to big government, in that they recognize that government will never completely stop doing bad things, and is in a uniquely coercive position to maximize the impact of those bad things (like putting you in jail if it doesn't like you), and thus the best way to limit the damage it does is to limit its size.
Of course, the actions of politicians who claim the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" don't necessarily correlate with these positions, and the attitudes of individuals who label themselves as such (like yourself) may also differ. However, I believe these philosophical attitudes toward the size of government are much more in line with most people's views, as well as the common understanding of the terms, than the ones you put forth.
Re:Nice Summary (Score:4, Insightful)
"Left wing party"? Since when does America have one of those?
We've got the right-wing party, and the even-more-right-wing party.