Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government

CISPA's Author Has Another Privacy-Killing Bill To Pass Before He Retires 138

Posted by Soulskill from the get-while-the-gettin's-good dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CISPA's Author Has Another Privacy-Killing Bill To Pass Before He Retires More

CISPA's Author Has Another Privacy-Killing Bill To Pass Before He Retires

Comments Filter:

  • Good Riddance... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:19PM (#46605431) Homepage Journal
    â¦I'll be SOOO happy to see this privacy hating fuck-tard off of the sunday morning shows.

    I just hope the voters in his Dist. see fit to vote for someone that believes more in the constitution.

  • Republican (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RoccamOccam ( 953524 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:20PM (#46605435)
    A Republican, you say? So we're back to posting party affiliations prominently in the summaries?

    • Might as well - you know half the comments will be about party affiliation anyway, and then a bunch of comments will be about whether it's really this government's fault, or the one before it, etc.

      Also, while politicians are annoying, talk show hosts can be much worse. If successful, he could pollute, I mean sway, the mind of quite a few people and get his way in the end without needing to be a politician.

    • Only if their a Republican...

      Seriously though, as a Republican (by convenience), I say good riddance. It's a chance to replace a establishment republican with someone who cares more then just about the control of the committees...

      • Perhaps, but how would such a person get on the ballot?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by lgw ( 121541 )

          The tea party successfully primaried-out some long-standing incumbents. While I fear they're being fully absorbed by the establishment, it shows it's possible.

          Really, democracy works great for things the voters care about. The modern obstacle to democracy is the modern governments full focus over keeping the voters complacent at all costs. This is why I fear we'll have an entitlement bubble - we could have begun a soft landing a few years back, but hey, there's no crisis, right? Only a big greedy meanie

          • If by "hard landing" you mean "civil war", I agree with you.

            It's time to start stockpiling the essentials.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by lgw ( 121541 )

              Heh, some "bunker builds" are all stockpiled out. One recent blog comment I read: "I'm done buying ammo. I have more than I can fire in my life, and it's starting to look like "Hoarders" around here".

              But I don't see it. In most states, state and local governments are fixing their financial problems and getting their act together. Since the federal government doesn't directly do much that's useful day-to-day, I think we'll be fine through a federal collapse and reboot. Police, fire, roads, schools, all

        • Easy. Simply have enough people sign the petition. Nobody can legally stop you.

    • Re:Republican (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:26PM (#46605493)

      You're right, he's a conservative, Republican and former FBI employee. That should complete the description of his politics enough to let anyone understand that his motivations should be questionable if you want to see your civil liberties protected.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fustakrakich ( 1673220 )

      Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government. We should hold them to it.

      • Re:Republican (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 28, 2014 @04:11PM (#46605833)

        Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government.

        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.

      • So you support the Tea Party and Libertarian wings of the Republican party, right?

        Yeah, I didn't think so. You guys are so predictable. You keep saying you want 'principled Republicans' and 'loyal opposition', but you can't stand anyone who doesn't agree with your viewpoint. You only want Republicans who are yes-men to your wildest ramblings. And you think others don't notice it.

        We just usually ignore your idiocy, because it's not worth the hassle of pointing out the hypocrisy and deceit.

        • :-) Your nick is very appropriate

          • Well, thank you. However, I have no idea what you mean by that.

            • Well the most polite, family safe word I can toss out is your naiveté. It matches. I suppose innocence might work also. Either way, you previous post was a laugh riot. You seem to have quite a grasp of all the internet memes and cliches. And you really know how to misread. And to be truthful you didn't make any sense. You just sound like a grumpy, senile old man on a rant because he can't find his dentures. Hint: look in the fridge, right next to your reading glasses.

              • Well, let's see if I can figure out what you mean. Your post I responded to was this:

                Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government. We should hold them to it.

                This is usually the rallying cry for liberals/leftists/Democrats/whatever-label-you-choose-to-use.

                There are many similar posts across all the blogs and message boards I read. The general sense one gets from reading similar posts is that the person (I will use the label "liberal" hereafter, but see the list above) wishes the Republicans would act according to their stated interest in small government. However that liberal al

                • Gym equipment? What a waste! If you want to keep in shape, build a house, break some rocks, plant some trees, pull a plow, do something useful. When I hear "gym" (outside of high school), I think "metrosexual" (too sexy for my shirt)..

    • Re:Republican (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wonkey_monkey ( 2592601 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:54PM (#46605697) Homepage

      It seems merely informative to me.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Exactly, but some people don't want you to be informed. It puts the entire system at risk. Posting party affiliation is very useful. It makes it easier to spot the bullshitters.

        I decided to post anonymously because too many moderators (republican apparently) are abusing their privileges and are mod bombing me. So fuck them

        • Posting party affiliation doesn't really help spot the bullshitters. There are bullshitter Republicans AND bullshitter Democrats.

          However, the poster who was complaining about posting party affiliation was complaining about how Slashdot tends to only use the party label when a Democrat does "good things*" or a Republican does "bad things*." Democrats doing "bad things" and Republicans doing "good things" don't get a party label.

          When a serious organization does this over time, this leads to the perception

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by shizzle ( 686334 )

        Obviously you missed this [slashdot.org], and in particular this [slashdot.org]. The issue is not that the party affiliation was identified, it's the apparent inconsistency of doing so, particularly when that inconsistency seems to have a partisan bias.

        • Obviously you missed this [slashdot.org], and in particular this [slashdot.org].

          Wow, two links to the same single counter example, can't argue with that...

          particularly when that inconsistency seems to have a partisan bias.

          "Seems"? Based on two opposing recent examples and the general murmurings of a few?

          I'm not saying a bias won't be borne out by the facts - in fact it doesn't seem at all unlikely - but your argument could use some real numbers.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shizzle ( 686334 )

            Wow, that's quite an overreaction. I posted the links not as a counterexample to prove a point, but as a pointer to the previous example and discussion (respectively) of the general topic, which was likely the context for the original comment above about how "we're back to posting party affiliations".

            If you'd actually bothered to read the comment thread at the second link, you'd find a much longer discussion with multiple examples (both pro and con), as well as instructions on how to find more examples via

            • Ah, my bad - I was in a hasty mood and assumed, when you said "in particular this," and liked to a comment, that you were indicating only the initial comment, not the discussion which followed. In retrospect it did seem a bit odd...

  • FISA...transparency.... (Score:3)

    by uCallHimDrJ0NES ( 2546640 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:29PM (#46605519)
    ....makes me giggle.

  • Conservative?? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Type44Q ( 1233630 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:33PM (#46605541)

    to start a conservative talk radio show

    It amazes me how, in this day and age, a demonstrably-fascist douchebag like this asshole can disguise his obvious big-government, Hamiltonian (i.e. classic textbook "liberal") nature by calling himself "conservative." Then again, considering how dumbed-down and ignorant the populace has become, I guess it should come as no surprise that the electorate (particularly the senile, white-haired contingent) has absolutely no idea what "conservative" is supposed to mean. Hint: it's correct usage (at least in America English; it has an altogether different meaning in the UK/Europe) implies that one is in favor of Jeffersonian ideals, which run completely counter to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist (i.e. "liberal") beliefs...

    • at least in America English

      That would be a typo (in case anyone was wondering). :p

      • It could be like saying "at least in Spain Spanish" as opposed to phrasing it as "at least in Spanish Spanish".

        In a certain light, it makes more sense.

    • Hi!

      Can you explain what you said some more? When I think of Jefferson, frankly, he seemed like a giant lib (in the sense that it is used now) to me. I looked up Jeffersonian vs. Hamiltonian ideals, and ok, it seems Jefferson wanted more agrarian roots for the country and Hamilton wanted more manufacturing for the country. Jefferson wanted strong foreign policy but hands off domestic policy. Hamilton wanted a more English system, a stronger domestic government.

      Can you really pull these attitudes into tod

      • Re:Conservative?? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by shizzle ( 686334 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @07:21PM (#46607101)

        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.

        • That's a fair point. It might be better to say that Liberals want Correctly Sized government. I'm sorry, something like that is hard to prove. Hey, I'm a liberal, and here I am saying that our government has a problem. I DO see the government as a force for good, as long as it's properly managed by We The People. So... fair point. And yes, we need the right people in it. Obama's not the right people.... :D

          Liberals want the government around because it's necessary. I agree wholeheartedly that we could limi

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by shizzle ( 686334 )

            I'd say it's tautological to claim that liberals want "Correctly Sized government"... conservatives want that too, they just disagree on the correct size.

            I feel like you're arguing a fairly reasonable, seemingly moderate liberal position (presumably your own) against a totally extreme caricature of conservatism. I don't know of any conservatives that are in favor of unsafe food, or pollution, or consumer fraud, or not having highways or police, or anything like that. Most conservatives I know get particul

            • It is my own position, and those of most of the people I know. Yes... Those extreme caricatures do get us in trouble..... Ahem. cough cough.

              Conservatives like safe food, no pollution, no consumer fraud, etc etc etc... Yes. They do. I think they just take it for granted. Thing is, I walk Ron Paul speak back in the old days and I say "yeah... Yeah.... Yeah!... YEAH!.... Wait, what, no...." I'd agree with everything he said riiiight up to the point where we needed to abolish the EPA. His son? Rand Paul doesn

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by shizzle ( 686334 )

                True enough... while we are both obviously even-tempered and rational, many others are not ;-). My conservative parents often say things (or more often, forward me emails) that make me want to cringe. It's not a one-sided thing though; for every person that thinks Obama is a secretly Muslim Kenyan, there's probably someone out there that thinks GWB planned 9/11. Reminds me of a Winston Churchill quote: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute discussion with the average voter."

                I agree with y

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by shizzle ( 686334 )

              Though now that I think of it, in spite of some commonality on identifying what the current problems are, you run into problems when you start to talk about solutions. Take crony capitalism for instance. From the conservative side, this is a particularly strong argument for limited government. The less power and money government has, the less you have to gain by insinuating yourself with politicians. The liberal reaction is that, if there's a problem, it must be that we need more laws to address the pro [wikipedia.org]

    • Jefferson was much more Hamiltonian when he himself was in the presidential office. Just sayin'.

      "Ideals" and "beliefs" are mostly useful in getting the sheeples in line, because sadly for most people "ideals" and "beliefs" are much easier pills to swallow than facts and evidence. How many "ideals" and "beliefs" have we had throughout the centuries, and how much good has ever come out of those? Those great men who actually got things done and moved our society in a positive direction almost always compromise

  • Rebublican Conservative?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tekrat ( 242117 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:41PM (#46605595) Homepage Journal

    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:Rebublican Conservative?? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Jason Levine ( 196982 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @04:16PM (#46605865) Homepage

      For three reasons:

      1) Each party is actually in favor of reducing government but in different areas. So Party A decries Party B's expansion of government into area X while themselves increasing government in area Y. And vice versa.

      2) When someone is trying to get into government, they rail about how government is the problem. Once they get into the government, though, they don't want to give up that power. So they instead try to use that power to "solve problems." Thus more government intrusion in our lives. (Which they will continue to campaign against. See #3.)

      3) What a politician campaigns for/against and what they are actually going to do when the vote rolls around are two very different things. Sometimes they might align, but all too often they will be highly different.

    • Because it works. Check the incumbent election rates.

      next question?

    • TFA acknowledges that the bill is pretty much a big list of things the government will not be allowed to do, aka smaller government.

      The summary is largely a lie (shocking, I know). The article takes issue with the fact that among all of the restrictions it puts on the government, it also repeats one phrase in existing law as it adds more restrictions to that phrase.

      Current law is that the intelligence agency can get [spy on foreign persons] if they have a "reasonable and articulable suspicion". This bill s

  • We welcome him with a lot of calls. Remember to be nice to the prescreeners.

  • Make it sound good to the people.

    Forget that we are reducing transparency, not enhancing.

  • Can you spot the Democrat? (Score:5, Informative)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:49PM (#46605661)

    This Slashdot article...

    ""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."

    Or this one...

    http://yro.slashdot.org/story/... [slashdot.org]
    "Several readers sent word that California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today. He's accused of conspiring to traffic guns and commit wire fraud, to defraud citizens of honest services, and bribery. The complant (PDF) also names 25 other defendants. Yee is known for pushing legislation that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors. "Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."
    Here's a hint:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L... [wikipedia.org]

  • I always find it interesting. . . (Score:4)

    by smooth wombat ( 796938 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @03:57PM (#46605719) Journal

    when people who claim to be conservatives are front and center in efforts to invade people's privacy or their lives in general.

    Whether this situation, the banning of books at libraries, abortion or anything other matter involving one's personal freedoms, conservatives seem to go out of their way to be hypocrites when talking about freedom.

    I guess it's easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk.

    Sort of like when businesses decry government regulation or intrusion into their practices then turn around and come to the taxpayer asking for money.

    • There are actual conservatives out there who still are conservative in values. Sadly, the Republican party seems to have pushed all of them out in favor of the bible thumping, anti-science, stuck-in-the-1950's type of candidate. If the Republican party went away and a Really Truly Conservative party took their place, this country would be much better off. (This is coming from someone who usually votes Democrat.)

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jfengel ( 409917 )

      There have always been strong-on-defense conservatives. Anti-communist zealots who were happy to sacrifice a lot of liberty for a little temporary safety had their biggest prominence during exactly the time that today's conservatives hold up as the ideal time of American values.

      What I find interesting is the way it's costing them an opportunity to go against Obama. Obama's own party is largely unhappy about continued NSA spying. Even Dianne Feinstein, who is from very liberal San Francisco but has been a de

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Holi ( 250190 )

        I find it funny that it seems that most Republicans fall under that title. Maybe because the Far Right aren't the ones that actually get to define what a republican is.

    • when people who claim to be conservatives are front and center in efforts to invade people's privacy or their lives in general.

      It's equally hypocritical when self-proclaimed conservatives or liberals do it, because it runs counter to both conservative and liberal ideology.

      Whether this situation, the banning of books at libraries, abortion or anything other matter involving one's personal freedoms, conservatives seem to go out of their way to be hypocrites when talking about freedom.

      Democrats have been quite

  • 2 party system (Score:3)

    by BrookHarty ( 9119 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @04:01PM (#46605761) Journal

    So we have the Republicans how act like Daddy and tells you what is morally correct and tries to force it with laws. Then we have Mommy Democrats who tells you how to behave with others and spend your money. How about we get a 3rd party (maybe a few) that agree to stay out of or personal and finacial lives.

    I cant see any reason we need to make it easier for companies to turn metadata or straight up personal data to the government. And both parties fall over themselves when it comes to self serving federal laws.

    And for those people complain that a libertarian party are the ones who would allow EPA disasters, schools to go unfunded, no fire/police departments are just using scare tactics to keep the status quo. So damn simple... Keep the gov outta our personal, private and capitalist transactions. Why is this so hard to understand?

    • The whole notion of battling factions in government is a terrible idea. How can you have a "Union" when the people in government are so divided? Though the political party in itself isn't inherently bad, we do have ultra-left/right morons and no-compromise party loyalists in the government that can't just seem to look past their reelection opportunities. And yet we still believe their "campaign promises" and vote them into a new term, only to have them spend it on campaigning for the next possible reelectio

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Uberbah ( 647458 )

      Then we have Mommy Democrats who tells you how to behave with others and spend your money.

      Then you bring out the Libertarian hand waving. Not that that winger claptrap had any basis in reality, but since Clinton, Democrats have been little more than secular Republicans.

      And for those people complain that a libertarian party are the ones who would allow EPA disasters, schools to go unfunded, no fire/police departments are just using scare tactics to keep the status quo.

      Because that's exactly what this does:

  • Just a pervert at heart (Score:4, Funny)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Friday March 28, 2014 @04:07PM (#46605809)

    Rogers and his ilk just like peeking at their neighbors. When he retires from politics and moves back home, make certain you don't leave your curtains open. He probably has a telescope.

  • Treason (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    And they say Snowden is the bad guy! Sheesh!

    "Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan" is the one (of several, no doubt) that should be tried for treason, not Snowden.

  • So get rid of him (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm starting to feel like America just needs to get their act together and kill off the people who want to ruin things from the top. Peacefully protesting and lobbying against this guy obviously haven't worked, but a rope will.

  • few months ago watching "The Anderson Tapes" (early 1970s) and near end of movie police searching building for more robbery suspects find some equipment tapped into some of the buildings phone lines. Senior officer says, "whoever set this up better have a warrant!" Later the 'snoops' that have been tracking character played by Sean Connery erased and purged all the tapes of conversations they recorded because they could get in big trouble as none of it was authorized by the courts. Fast forward to these day

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Quila ( 201335 )

      Remember Enemy of the State with Will Smith? All that surveillance was illegal and was being done by a lose cannon within the agency. Once the agency found out what he was doing, he was history. The movie was made when we still respected the NSA.

      Fast forward not too much to today, we find such surveillance is SOP.

  • I really don't care. They won't see any data from my users anyway, because I am building services around decentralized user data.

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close