Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Why CISPA Is a Really Bad Bill

Posted by Soulskill on from the must-be-the-comic-sans-font dept.

We've heard recently of CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, a bill currently making its way through Congress that many are calling the latest incarnation of SOPA. Reader SolKeshNaranek points out an article at Techdirt explaining exactly why this bill is bad, and how its backers are trying to deflect criticism by using language that's different and rather vague. Quoting: "The bill defines 'cybersecurity systems' and 'cyber threat information' as anything to do with protecting a network from: '(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.' It's easy to see how that definition could be interpreted to include things that go way beyond network security — specifically, copyright policing systems at virtually any point along a network could easily qualify."

16 of 142 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why must we have overbearing, obsequious legislators whose only goals seem to be to annoy, obfuscate, and make dirty money? The power to expel a Congressman should extend to anyone in the US with at least a given number of supporters.

    ____________
    Please.

    1. Re:Why? by pwizard2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. Having to wait until an election to get rid of a politician is ridiculous. The system is set up to exploit people's stupidity and forgetfulness. The politicians allegedly represent us, so we should have the power to fire them at any time, preferably in the middle of a hot-button issue like SOPA. A simple petition with X number of signatures would be a good way to do it.

      --
      "It is a denial of justice not to stretch out a helping hand to the fallen; that is the common right of humanity."
    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Requirement: A million dollars.
      Disqualification: Openly admitting that you don't believe in fairy tales.

    3. Re:Why? by shentino · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe if we could shitcan them on the spot, then the bad ones won't bother running.

      Biggest reason they are corrupt as they are right now is that they have no reason to fear the voters. All they have to do is lie through their teeth during campaign season, then once they're safely in office and the only ones who can get rid of them are their fellow politicians, the wolves can safely take off their wool cloaks.

    4. Re:Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      to take the devil's advocate/opposite view: if you can kick someone out of office instantly (or nearly) then won't they all be just living for the short term and never long? isn't this even worse than what we have now?

      companies are evil, like that. investors often are, too. they want short term this and short term that. very reactive but not long-thinking.

      what we have now is totally broken. but your proposal won't work, either.

      I'm not sure the current structure is at all correct. rather than making small tweaks, it seems to me we need huge changes. as huge as going from linked linear lists to 2d or 3d trees.

      tiered review and rotating officials with some feedback system might be nice to try. lots of watchers watching the watchers. self policing system that ensures stability (think: negative feedback amplifiers, to use a tech analogy).

      there is no way the current system self-fixes. no self policing and power goes unchecked. truly, the people and their good is not being looked after. I think a lot of people agree that our system needs an overhaul, not a tune-up.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      one step forward would be: remove money from the equation.

      SERIOUSLY police the income of the bastards. don't allow them to live any better than they were before taking public office. and the same for afterwards! I'm serious about this; the money IS the corruption.

      I fully believe there are people who do good things because they believe its the 'right thing to do'. but those people never make it to office (for lots of reasons). and the ones who are in office are the sociopathic types (generally, its true, with few exceptions).

      remove all profit motive and ensure that even after office, there won't be any funny business. yes, that's hard to implement and the details are hard. but I bet it would take the 'bad element' out of our government, our police, our courts and we'd be able to restore trust in our 'leaders' again.

      "he was playin' real good. for free."

      there's none of that left in public office. that's the problem. they are all in it for the power, money, influence. remove that motive and you filter out all the badies. and then things will improve.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Why? by trout007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Good points.

      Also you can't be a federal employee and run for partisan public office. I guess politicians don't want people that actually know how their policies work competing with them.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    7. Re:Why? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fairy Tales, aka sky daddies.

      you don't *have* to be christian (in the public's eye) but it sure helps. a lot.

      otoh, if you openly admit you don't believe in sky daddies and the like, you'll never get anywhere in american public office. (heck, even in business, its a show-stopper).

      also, if you appear too intelligent, that's a major turn-off to the american voting public. it makes me ashamed of my own country, when I think of that, but we all know about the anti-intellectualism that is on the rise.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:Why? by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yeah, i've seen that kind of thing, and I was avoiding it on purpose. Because, most people who pledge to never vote for a "Christian" or any other person of faith, will do exactly that come Nov. this year. Many of those will vote for Obama, and do so gladly because ... well Obama is their kind of person of faith.

      I'd love to see the "Atheist Party" candidate and what kind of wackjob they'd end up with. If I had my guess, most people who claim atheism end up voting for some big government (sky daddy substitute) politician like Obama.

      Me, I'm not a "Christian". I am a Libertarian, and I don't have a problem with people of faith (or lack their of) politically. My point, Atheists will mock religious people and how they vote, but then often vote for exactly the person they just mocked (like Obama). They compromise their own values in doing so.

      Unless Atheists some how got the message (hidden) that Obama isn't really a Christian (or Muslim), in which case, he is pretending (lying) about it, just to get elected. What kind of values is that?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Why? by erroneus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is that what these "criminals" are doing shouldn't be criminal. The real crimes are happening because the criminals have changed the laws to do their bidding.

    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The answer is to get rid of FPPS voting, which ensures that two nearly equally corrupt parties bubble to the top. Just about any other voting system gives a better way to get rid of corruption.

    11. Re:Why? by Eraesr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem in the US is that people can either vote for Obama or vote for the republican alternative. It has little to do with being an atheist and (hypocritically) voting for the Christian guy. It's mostly just a choice between the bad Christian guy or the worse Christian guy. So unless you really don't care (and abstain your vote altogether), you'll end up voting for the least bad guy just to prevent the worst guy from getting into office.

      Here in the Netherlands, where I live, we have a great diversity of parties. Some of those have a strong religious background, others haven't got that at all. It doesn't always make it easier to get things done if a multitude of parties are involved, but at least there's a much broader choice for the voters.

    12. Re:Why? by Chewbacon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not so clear on exactly how they get to vote for their own salary adjustments. I wish I could do that at work! But go up to your congressman and say: hey, I want to pass a bill to allow the people to vote for your salaries. It won't work. "Yeah, constituent, let me get right on that after we fix the economy, healthcare, and this little energy situation."

      --
      Chewbacon
      The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  2. Re:List of Corporations Supporting CISPA by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I looked at that list and there isn't one company I respect.

    go figure!

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  3. I love they way these people think. by mosb1000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's like somewhere a bunch of congressmen and lobbyists got other and said:

    "Wow, the internet has really been a force for global change. It empowers people to coordinate with each other and share information in a way never before possible. What can be do to put a stop to it?"

  4. Re:Summary is misleading. by TedHornsby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Then why the references to "intellectual property" in the bill?