Slashdot Mirror
New CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Even Worse Than SOPA
An anonymous reader writes "As congressmen in Washington consider how to handle the ongoing issue of cyberattacks, some legislators have lent their support to a new act that, if passed, would let the government pry into the personal correspondence of anyone of their choosing. This is SOPA being passed in smaller chunks... 'H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short) has vague definitions that could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties.'"
"This is SOPA being passed in smaller chunks."
So long as all law is made solely to restrict people and _never_to recagnize rights or prevent abuses such as this, it will just be attempt after attempt until a given law passes. It is absolutely inevitable.
Congress must enact law that supercedes any prior or later law indicating that personal communications CANNOT be intercepted with anything short of a court order. This, for the various things that are trying to be passed now. Only when they have to fight for the revokation of these protective laws before they can bribe their desired laws into affect will we be in any way safe.
But it'll never happen.
Yup, and even if they can't slip it past the public eye, all they need to do is attach it as a rider to the We Love America And The Troops And Kittens Act Of 2013 and it'll pass unanimously.
On one hand I want to scream at your horrible cynicism and condemn your point of view. On the other hand I think you're completely correct.
agreed, its only a matter of 'which year' is the actual death of the free internet. free as in freedom; I don't give a rat's as about money matters, in this context.
pressure will not stop and sooner or later, we'll lose what we have become used to. we've had some good internet days during the last decade or two; but the government AND big business have teamed up to ruin it.
remember that. remember who really ruined things.
darknets will be the only thing left for truly freedom-based communications.
what a world we have created; or allowed to grow in this direction. so sad that 'money and power is all that matters'.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Laws like this are the defacto end of cloud computing if you have an obligation to protect your data.
Or rather.. and end to it in the USA.
Next up; crypto is for terrorists and child pornographers!
..don't panic
The way to fight legal snooping isn't to fight each and every snooping bill. Eventually one will pass. The way is to make a law saying the oppposite, a guarantee of privacy bill. Offense>defense.
agreed, its only a matter of 'which year' is the actual death of the freedom
FTFY.
Freedom is not good for the 1%. They have gone by different names in the past of course. It is a cycle. The 1% grows through abuse after abuse, and gradual poolings of influence and resources.
Eventually they will push it too far and either 1) vastly lower their own standards of living by taking out society with it, at which time they tend to migrate somewhere else (like a virus) or 2) society rears up and kills the fuckers.
Either way, we all end up bloody, a lot of drama, and then come the speeches about how we are going to create a new society in which the past will not repeat itself.
Animal Farm is not a book. It is simple observation of repeating patterns.
That's the down payment. The full price is much higher.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as Freedom should not be highly rated.
remember that. remember who really ruined things.
- I always remember WHO really ruined the things - those who asked government for bread and circuses and told it that it could do anything as long as it delivered those things.
You can't handle the truth.
Guys, let's stop thinking like Surrender Monkeys when it comes to SOPA and the government. Congressmen are just politicians and almost without exception very stupid people. They make knee-jerk decisions based on how many drinks lobbyists bought them at the bar the night before. But they are most definitely very susceptible to the prospect of pitchfork-waving crowds, eager to nail their hides to the barn door.
Look at what happened with the last SOPA showdown. The backlash was so severe and massive that Congress was practically pissing itself to run away from that bill. We, by their standards, melted their phone lines and crashed their Blackberries.
Last time we had Google and Wikipedia and other high-traffic sites leading the charge, but we can't count on them doing it again next time or to not make a deal with Hollywood/the RIAA.
We can create the perception of a groundswell preemptively. We can give them a taste of their own medicine preemptively, the very same medicine they would foist on us. If they want to subject us to crap like this, let's hijack their individual Blackberries and let them feel what it's like to have this done to them by anonymous strangers.
Honestly when I read sentiments like, "Oh well, the government is going to screw us no matter what we do so let's give up now," it reminds me of that scene from Swingers
For pete's sake, people, we're the people who run the central nervous system of the world. How is it that we psych ourselves out over stuff like this? We should be able to mold the government like putty. And it would help that every time we send them a message we put a common tagline like "Free America!" so that they understand it's a spontaneous expression from the electorate that they're fucking up and better straighten up and fly right.
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
When legislation like this crops up again, after we, the people have already said "No" emphatically, then the legislators supporting this particular shit show need to be immediately, physically and forcibly removed from any and all offices. Period. There is no interest in national security here, this is merely an attempt to grasp at straws. Seeing this kind of crap being birthed from the loins of political prostitutes (even though they're basically the same thing) honestly makes me ashamed to admit that I live in the United States.
I'm sure that our forefathers would say the exact same thing. Anyone who genuinely believes that this trainwreck of an idea is a good thing either needs to have their head examined or is being paid by a corporation and/or consortium. Fucking goddamn, this pisses me off.
pressure will not stop and sooner or later, we'll lose what we have become used to. we've had some good internet days during the last decade or two; but the government AND big business have teamed up to ruin it.
Pardon me for saying it, but I've heard the doomsday prediction that the "wild wild west" days of the Internet is coming to a close now since shortly after I got on in the 90s. Double that after 9/11. P2P was going to die after Napster and torrents were going to die after Suprnova and TPB and most recently file hosting was to die with Megaupload. I don't see that any of that has happened. The music industry has given up DRM protection, the video industry is still in denial but BluRay looks to be practically broken so 1080p content will be on P2P for the foreseeable future and we still got root on our PCs and now on Android on the mobile. The world is not full of Trusted Computing and Remote Attestation to get on the Internet that was supposed to be "imminent".
Their legal campaigns have also honestly not scared many, they're consistently meeting opposition in the courts and so are all their "graduated response" aka "three strikes, you're out" laws except France who surrenders as usual. They can't significantly increase the chance of getting caught - particularly with the explosion it people file sharing - and they won't get public support for the death penalty for file sharing. It's gone beyond the point where they can effectively combat in the courts and people generally react badly to that kind of arbitrary, excessive punishment to the small minority that does get caught.
I honestly think they're losing year for year, with a population that is less and less likely to accept these restrictions. They still haven't "tamed" the first generation of online people and for each year a year of young people can vote and old people die out. It takes a long, long time - from first vote to average life span we're talking 60 years or so and we're maybe 15 years into it since Internet got "mainstream". If there was an election today in Germany the Pirate Party would enter parliament (they've already entered two state parliaments), no offense to my neighbors Sweden but that's a 8-9x bigger country and a leading force in the EU, far stronger than two MEPs in the European Parliament. Meanwhile bandwidth gets faster and cheaper, software gets smarter most bills to store traffic data has died on the drawing board.
My impression is also that more than more places are offering customary wifi service, go into any coffee shop, burger joint, pizza place, gas station, buses, trains, airports, airplanes, hotels, motels or pretty much any company office and they have a wifi for you. True, the number of open home wifis may have declined somewhat but overall I'd say your options are more not fewer. Not to mention that with faster connections even using proxies and whatnot slowing them down you still get decent speeds, the content you want is relatively constant in size. Currently I have 60/60 Mbit and in all honestly (and my inner geek screams to accept this) I'd have zero use for a 1000 Mbit line. Okay I'd have to wait a few seconds shorter on the occasions that I do wait but my total downloads would probably not go up at all.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
See, this is what happens when we allow corporations to have a 'voice' in politics by spending money on campaign contributions. A law which was suppressed by overwhelming public opposition (SOPA) can creep back into the system because there are some (arguably powerful) corporations in favor of it.
I support (along with a lot of other people) amending the constitution to get rid of this kind of loophole. I think the Move To Amend people got the right idea.
With an amendment like that in place maybe we'd actually see candidates pandering to their constituents instead of whatever corporate interests contributed the most to their campaign fund.
In a bit of shameless internet panhandling, I accept Litecoin Donations at Lbd2oH9QsthD1GfuUXPyka12YxvWJYnBVf
The "federal government" isn't writing these bills, the corporations are. And with the new unlimited power to influence elections, only pro-corporate candidates will hold office. These laws are written in secret, by unknown people, and passed in the dark of night.
If you look at the one thing that has changed in the past 80 years, making the government's power onerous, it has been the growing influence of corporations, not just in national elections, but at every level of government down to the school board. I only recently learned that corporate money, Citizens United-style, is not being put into school board elections in parts of the US.
You can limit the power of government all you want, and it's not going to change a thing. We'll just end up dealing with private police, accountable to no one but unelected (and unelectable) corporate entities. You have to know your enemy, and the enemy is the corporatist.
My theory is easily testable: pass public funding of elections, amend the constitution to change "person" to "natural person". Codify "corporations are not people" and "money is not speech" and I believe we'd go a long way toward rolling back the most onerous aspects of what is currently being called the "too-powerful government".
You know, we could also make a huge difference if we just started showing up, in numbers too big to hide in "free speech zones", and started scaring the shit out of the people who are elected.
It's impossible to scare a corporations when we're not even customers of many of the most powerful corporations. But it's relatively easy to scare an elected official, just by showing up. Not signing online petitions. Not blogging about it. Not forwarding angry emails, but by getting up, getting out of the house and go stand in front of the buildings where these politicians do their business.
You are welcome on my lawn.
The problem with Ron Paul, like most libertarians, is that he wants less government control over everyone. In reality, although all men are created equal, not all men end up with equal amounts of power. Those with the most power require the most checks on that power to prevent abuse.
Right now, there are two groups with lots of power: corporate leaders and government officials. If you deregulate businesses, you reduce the amount of government power, while increasing the amount of corporate power. This is not a net gain or a net loss; whether the people with the most power are governments or corporations is immaterial because in the long run, the net effect is the same. You'll still have the same disparity between the power held by an average citizen and whoever has the most power, which means that many (most?) of those who have power will abuse it, and there won't be anything meaningful that the average citizen can do about it when they do.
What makes proper government hard is that the people who most desire power are invariably the ones who are least qualified to wield it, and thus the ones from whom government must protect us the most. This is difficult not only because those sorts of people have a tendency to weasel their way into positions of power within governments, but also because it is very hard to write rules that maximally affect people with power and minimally affect people without it.
The best that can be hoped for is a government that gets it right most of the time, which pretty much requires high taxes on people with lots of money to reduce their ability to grow that money without bounds, treating capital gains (at least above a certain dollar figure) as ordinary income, an outright ban on political contributions made by groups of people who are not acting as individuals (whether that group be a corporation, a union, a PAC, or any other organization), and a few dozen other major fixes that are far enough removed from this discussion that I won't bother mentioning them here.
Note that most of these things are precisely the opposite of what Ron Paul wants. He wants to eliminate the income tax and capital gains taxes, which means that all revenue would be through regressive taxes that further increase the disparity between the rich and the poor, and thus the power difference. His voting record shows that he supports PACs and rejects nearly all manner of campaign finance reform (disclosure rules for donations by lobbyists, limits on soft money ads, etc.). And so on.
In short, Ron Paul is really just another side of the same coin as the Democrats and the Republicans. That's not what we need. What we need is to throw away the rusty old coin entirely and bring in people with fresh ideas.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.