CISPA 3.0: the Senate's New Bill As Bad As Ever 132
Daniel_Stuckey writes: "CISPA is back for a third time—it has lost the 'P,' but it's just as bad for civil liberties as ever. The Senate Intelligence Committee is considering a new cybersecurity bill that contains many of the provisions that civil liberties groups hated about the Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA). Most notably, under the proposed bill companies could not be sued for incorrectly sharing too much customer information with the federal government, and broad law enforcement sharing could allow for the creation of backdoor wiretaps. The bill, called the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014, was written by Senate Intelligence Chair Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and is currently circulating around the committee right now but has not yet been introduced. Right now, the bill is only a 'discussion draft,' and the committee is still looking to make revisions to the bill before it is officially introduced."
Sorry, Mr. Becket (Score:5, Funny)
Will no one rid me of this turbulent senator?
Re: (Score:1)
I've never voted for her since I don't share her views.
the funny thing is...with regards to the NSA spying stuff, neither do her constituents.
Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (Score:5, Informative)
Sharing.
There's that word again.
"I am working with Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) on bipartisan legislation to facilitate the sharing of cyber related information among companies and with the government and to provide protection from liability,"
I see it a lot in marketingspeak too. "This is how we share your private information with our marketing affiliates..."
Why is it when individuals share the secrets of governments and corporations amongst themselves, it's "stealing" or "leaking," but when governments and corporations steal and resell our secrets to each other, it's called "sharing?"
Orwell would be proud in more ways than one. Difi doubleplusgood duckspeak blackwhite doublethink.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't steal mp3's, I share them. Not saying it's right, just that it's so.
No, it isn't.
Copying and downloading have NEVER been "theft", according to U.S. law.
Further, you want to see how the copyright owners treat the content creators? [techdirt.com]
Before you start making arguments about ethics and karma, maybe you should make sure you're on the right side of said argument.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Incidentally, I know your opinions and ethics differ from mine, but I'm not interested in arguing.
Okay, let me amend what I wrote above. You may not have been arguing, but it appeared to me that you were making societal value judgments based on (A) an inaccurate interpretation of the law and the ethics of downloading, and (B) on the side of people who have themselves notoriously worked to skew the law in favor of their greedy corporate agenda, despite the societal havoc that behavior has demonstrably caused.
That is what you seemed to be saying, from my point of view. I could be wrong.
I may end up on the losing side of this debate - but I'm not so sure it'll be the wrong one.
I am pretty conf
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
What about copying and downloading trade secret data from a private company? still not theft?
This is a broad and rather irrelevant question. The answer would be: it depends.
What I was referring to above was the fact that most copyright infractions (such as downloading a copyrighted work for your own use, but not resale) is not legally a crime at all, much less the crime of theft. And that is where much of the difference lies.
Theft (in a legal sense) more-or-less means that you have deprived someone of something. If you steal money, you have deprived that person of their money. If you steal a
Re: (Score:1)
Wow are you wrong! Sharing, copying, stealing... Symantecs when you are talking about a digital file. It's all perspective and opinion.
No, it isn't. It's a matter of law. And law is not about mere semantics. (Or it's not supposed to be, anyway.)
It is also a matter of ethics, and it is ethics that are supposed to drive law, not the other way around.
Re: (Score:1)
Here is an example of your 'ethics' about law...
What the hell does that have to do with law? That's just a bunch of fuckups fucking up. It has nothing whatever to do with the law and how it's made.
Get back to me when you even know what you're arguing about.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As a Representative of her constituents, mind telling me just what in the FUCK she thinks she's doing?
I would like to know too. But let me ask you: when was the last time your elected representatives actually represented you?
I am in contact with my Senator and Congresspeople regularly. Usually (especially in the case of the Democrats) in response I get a form letter telling me thanks for my interest but this is why they're going to do whatever the hell they want to do anyway.
I strongly suggest starting at the bottom and working up. Your State legislature is much more likely to listen to reason. Once y
Re: (Score:2)
And people wonder why some of us want a greatly restricted federal government with more power granted to the states.
Re: (Score:2)
I am in contact with my Senator and Congresspeople regularly. Usually (especially in the case of the Democrats) in response I get a form letter telling me thanks for my interest but this is why they're going to do whatever the hell they want to do anyway.
This is still better than what I happen to get back. If I get something back it is 6 months after the vote telling me how much they appreciate my support for how they voted even though the original message was telling them I wanted them to vote the other way and provided reasons why. Most of the time I just never hear back.
I usually have better luck with my state house and senate members but even there they tend to not be very responsive until they start coming around the neighborhood looking for votes. At
Re: (Score:1)
Funny that, as even she doesn't seem to share her views....
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2014/03/dianne-feinstein-calls-out-the-cia-for-spying-on-the-senate.html
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I've never voted for Tax-me Shameless(RINO-GA), but thankfully, he's retiring. I guess this is one of his last acts of idiocy before we get to replace him.
He has to guarantee himself a nice consulting or executive gig when he leaves office. (See also: Chris Dodd)
Re:Sorry, Mr. Becket (Score:5, Insightful)
There are certainly a lot of RINOs and DINOs. The problem with terms like these is that they make it seem as if the parties aren't filled with these scumbags, but they are; the parties themselves are evil. This isn't just a few people; it's the entire parties.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
The rhetoric of "If you don't vote for D or R you are wasting your vote." has been part of mass media for decades. Your point is correct, but propaganda has power.
Yes, it certainly does. Just for example, a lot of people who wanted to get rid of Bush very badly would not vote independent or Libertarian, because they perceived that they would be "wasting their vote". I know, I talked to a great many of them at the time.
And so, what did they end up doing? Voting for Obama. Which achieved the goal of getting rid of Bush... very badly.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Except her CCW permit, of course.
She thinks people like her having guns is perfectly fine, not so much the riffraff.
Most laws are enacted to legalize current practice (Score:1)
So in a sense, it's 5 past 12.
KILL IT WITH FIRE! (Score:1)
Version 3.0, 4.0, infinity, it must be stopped!!!!
Let's try an experiment. (Score:4, Interesting)
On May 5th, 9pm EST....let's all think of Diane Fienstein dying of a natural cause. And see if thoughts actually influence the universe.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Just this:
<quote>Beginning with that materialistic world-view, you get no rational origin for morality or ethics</quote>
If we all treat each other nicely, everybody is happier for it. Therefore I must treat others nicely. I don't need to fear gods, cops, or parents.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Alarm set.
See you in the collective unconscious.
Biased much? (Score:1)
I noticed you left out Saxby Chambliss.
Re: (Score:2)
He does have a pretty cool name.
My anagram generator comes up with, "Scab Ax Limbs Shy".
Re:Let's try an experiment. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or, instead, here's a thought: go find out if your senator is on the Senate Intelligence Committee [wikipedia.org]. If so, call them and tell them you don't want the bill to get out of committee. Explain why. Extra credit: go read TFA so that you know why before calling. But if you don't want to do that, you can always just tell the staffer that you don't like the bill. Make sure you don't identify it as "CISPA" since that's not its current name.
Why didn't I think of that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What do you think killed the last few iterations of this clunker? What killed SOPA and PIPA? Massive public outcry. They don't care all that much about the will of the people, but phone calls? Those they pay attention to, if enough come in. The glare of the spotlight makes them self-conscious.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually it goes through (Score:5, Insightful)
They will simply continue to refluff the bill and push it on us again and again until it passes.
The US government is a corrupt oligarchy and needs to be torn down.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
They will simply continue to refluff the bill and push it on us again and again until it passes.
The US government is a corrupt oligarchy and needs to be torn down.
Yep. Much like the "Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act", which was designed to make bankruptcy relief (used commonly by corporations to escape debt) virtually inaccessible to consumers. It was proposed in 1997 and rejected year after year until finally it passed in 2005. What the corporations and political establishment want, they will get - sooner or later.
Surprise! (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, look, Feinstein is once again taking action to fuck over the populace while positioning herself (and friends) in the elite ruling class.
Isn't that shocking?
Re: (Score:1)
And these people fancy themselves on the level of founding fathers in that they know, just know, they are capable of editing the first and second amendments because Modernity i.e. they get in the senators' political way, I mean FER DA PEEPUL!!!1!11
When will this end (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it would be nice if congress went on recess forever instead of returning to enact shit like this.
Wow. I never imagined such a utopia until you mentioned it here.
Just imagine all the Rights we might get to keep...
Re: (Score:3)
What the hell are you doing there? What is your purpose, soldier?
My guess you are just making more people hate us.
Re: (Score:2)
God. Fuck Putin. Hate on Kissinger all you want but he postulated that providing economic aid to Boris Yeltsin (about '91-'93) after the collapse of the USSR would lead to a resurgence of Russian imperialism and ultimately come back and bite us in the ass about 20 years later.
Obviously (Score:1)
This is all due to your legal bribing you americans call "lobbying" that sh*t like this keep coming back.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please, Mr. Anonymous, share with us your wisdom as to how we can get someone who is a viable option to remove these lobbying problems from our government. Tell me who we can elect that has the means to run a successful campaign without accepting lobbying money and who will be an incorruptible politician!
Me and Jimmy Carter (Score:1)
Me, except they would build a wall around me, just like they did Jimmy Carter.
We only need a single law that can act like a wedge to start breaking open this cesspool we call government.
Start with a real whisteblower law.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be happy to. But the people who are up there making these laws are the people who are trying to force through CISPA for the third or fourth time now.
We can't make any laws like this until we get someone good in there. We can't get someone good in there until we start breaking it open. We can't start breaking it open until we can pass laws like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your state have a ballot iniative process? Put forward an initiative that the people vote on instead of the politicians!
Once idea would be to try to pass legislation that limited the salaries of politicians (including the income that they could recieve as gifts) and their family members too (definitely spouses) for time during office and for the next 10 years. You want to be a politcian? Fine, but you have to live like a grad student or a Peace Corps worker to do it.
Eternal Vigilance (Score:5, Interesting)
Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
We need to adopt similar structures and systems. To me, the EFF is a good rallying point, so I urge you to give all the support you can. I say, without irony, "Think of your children."
Re:Eternal Vigilance (Score:5, Funny)
Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.
Re: (Score:2)
True dat. By my definition "arms" includes everything from bare knuckles to thermonuclear devices. Also, "bear" means you have to carry it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Does your definition of "carry it yourself" allow for powered exoskeletons or cybernetic limbs?
Re: (Score:2)
Exoskeletons no, because the arms would be bearing you and we don't have the right to be borne by arms. Cybernetic arms (as in upper torso appendages) yes, but not legs or feet unless you walk on your hands.
Re: (Score:2)
Is weapons-bearing the same a child-bearing?
Re: (Score:3)
Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.
It's not for nothing that the NRA is sometimes referred to as "Negotiate Rights Away". That's why years ago I chose to avoid the compromise-loving, surrender monkey NRA and joined GOA [gunowners.org] instead.
However, the NRA did a decent job helping to protect our rights after Newton, so perhaps they have finally grown a spine.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
Obviously not, since they've accepted some amount of gun control.
Not only that, they actually helped write some of the gun control bills. But that's in the past and the NRA of the last decade or so has caught on to the ideas of eternal vigilance and incrementalism (pushing your view inch by inch, always taking as much as you can get, but not refusing just because it's not all you want).
Re: (Score:1)
Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
The influence of industry dollars? Sorry, I don't think there are any privacy manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
The influence of industry dollars? Sorry, I don't think there are any privacy manufacturers.
In 2011, the NRA raised over $200M from individual contributors. Between 2005 and 2012, the NRA received $15M from gun manufacturers, which averages to a little over $2M per year.
This means that the industry funds approximately 1% of the NRA; the other 99% comes from its membership.
Source: Bloomberg BusinessWeek. [businessweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Officially, sure - but I'm sure NRA leaders go on "hunting retreats" in moutain resorts funded by industry leaders and get all kinds of unofficial bribes. "Where is the proof?", you ask. I respond to this by adding an extra layer of foil to my hat.
Re: (Score:2)
Agree with them or not, the NRA knows what is needed to protect their favorite amendment.
And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters. It's like a man of sartorial elegance who refuses a haircut, and, distracted by the wonder of his hair, gets stabbed in the stomach by the barber. Then he wonders why, why didn't his right to refuse a haircut protect him from fatal abdominal wounds?
The fact of the matter is, liberal numbers of personal firearms and the right to carry those firearms wherever is just window dressing.
Re: (Score:3)
And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters.
Examples? I see no reason we have to pick and choose which rights to protect.
It's sartorial nonsense as far as protecting liberty goes. After a moments thought, it's obvious why - shooting someone is illegal. If you shoot a public official, the legality of your gun and you carrying that gun is irrelevant. There is no way for you to exercise your right to a gun in a way that protects the erosion of the central liberties.
You're conflating two different uses of the right. One is defense of the lives of self and others. I carry a handgun on a daily basis, but have no intention of every shooting a public official (unless that official happens to be illegally and imminently threatening someone's life and that's the only way I can stop it -- but that would be a legally justifiable shooting). For defense against tyranny my little 9mm (or .380 pocket pist
Re: (Score:2)
And in protecting it in the way they are, they are of course, contributing to the erosion of your rights in other quarters.
Examples? I see no reason we have to pick and choose which rights to protect.
Unimportant rights frequently must give way to essential rights. For instance, my right to be safe and secure in my own home (as guaranteed by the UNCHR) overrides your right to carry a gun. So you may not carry your gun into my house, or, even (thankfully) into my country. Security and liberty is essential - the right to pack heat, though it makes you feel like a big man, is not.
As to specific examples as to how the NRA and other ideologues are eroding your basic, essential rights, refer to my previous
Re: (Score:2)
my right to be safe and secure in my own home (as guaranteed by the UNCHR) overrides your right to carry a gun.
those 2 rights have NOTHING to do with each other, so no, your right to "feel" safe has nothing to do with my carrying a gun.
Re: (Score:2)
The article makes no mention of feeling secure. Gun toting idealogues coming into my home are an immediate threat to my family, and hence, my and my families rights to be secure overrides their right not be relieved of their weapon.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So I'm not a police officer or a weapons expert. However it seems to me handguns are not a defensive technology. Their primary purpose is to kill someone. A bulletproof vest I would agree is a defensive technology. But I guess as a culture we have gotten used to doublespeak with terms such as "peacekeeper missile" so your use of the language is not unusual.
As far as I know, police officers carry handguns as an offensive technology to attack dangerous criminals. They use bullet proof vests to protect ag
Re: (Score:2)
You've not read much Sun Tzu.
Re: (Score:2)
For an actual gun-rights organization, check out the GOA (Gun Owners of America)...
Re: (Score:2)
I'm intrigued. What's the main difference, in your opinion, between GOA and NRA?
Re: (Score:2)
Sasaki-san, NRA wa uso, des-yo: The GOA is grassroots and the NRA is astroturf...
Comment removed (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
My email to my Congress Critter. (Score:2, Interesting)
Subject: CISPA version 3.0 - Also known as Feinstien's CISA
Right now, Senator Feinstien (D-CA) and Sen. Chambliss (R-GA) are currently circulating around a "discussion draft" of a bill called "Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2014." This is just as bad for civil liberties as the original CISPA - the Cybersecurity Information Sharing and Protection Act - and I would appreciate it, assuming that this bill actually makes it out of comittee, if you were to vote against it. Please remember that every vot
No pretense of protection this time (Score:3)
Bipartisanship.. I think it's wonderful (Score:2)
We should be grateful that republicans and democrats come together in our time of need to provide a *safe and secure society*.
Thank you, US (Score:5, Interesting)
For destroying your own cloud industry and giving companies in other countries a better market. I hear already commercials each morning on the radio when I drive to work about a local Dutch company (KPN) advertizing their cloud because no forieghn governments have access to it.
Cisco and Juniper will be pleased too when they find that more customers move to Huawei. At least the Chinese are not interested in "regime changes" in other countries.
Collapse of US IT business (Score:1)
So, to follow on from PRISM and the decision [theregister.co.uk] this week that all data stored in a cloud run by a US company is available to anyone in US law enforcement, Congress wants to complete the task of throwing the US IT industry under a bus? No US company can be sued for giving any information they have to the government without permission? What are they thinking of?
Re: (Score:2)
At least the Chinese are not interested in "regime changes" in other countries.
Tibet and Taiwan will be happy to hear that.
We need to win each time. They need to win once. (Score:3)
Here we go again. As politics is not an additive art, one hopes that the they managed to lean no lessons last time. One also hopes that the recent revelations will help make it easier for the public to see that unfettered 'We need all the powers, so trust us' lacks credibility.