Slashdot Mirror
CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence'
SolKeshNaranek writes with news that Representative Mike Rogers (R-MI), sponsor of CISPA, has decided to tempt fate by referring to the protests that are springing up as 'turbulence on the way down to landing.' From the article:
"What really comes through in the article — which mostly talks about how Rogers has been supposedly working with Google to change some of the language in the bill to make it more acceptable -- is how little concern Rogers has for the public. Instead, most of the article just talks about how he's been working with tech companies to make sure they're okay with the bill. And while that's a start, it's no surprise that lots of tech companies would be okay with CISPA, because it grants them broad immunity if they happen to hand over all sorts of private info to the government. But to then call the protests mere 'turbulence' is pretty damned insulting to the actual people this will impact the most: the public, whose privacy may be violated."
So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people. He's been working with CORPORATIONS to make sure that CORPORATIONS don't have any problem with the LEGISLATION that is put upon THE CITIZENS.
As for the opinion of CITIZENS? -- Who gives a fuck?
It's incredibly frustrating that these 'sponsors' will continue to ram legislation down our collective throats such as this, when it clearly is against the general good and serves only private interests. Even if a bill such as SOPA gets defeated in the public spotlight thanks to major protest campaigning, it just shows up a couple months later under a different name. The tragedy is you can't get people interested in fighting 'the man' every week. I was very pleasantly surprised by the general outcry when SOPA was being pushed through, but I seriously doubt you can rally that kind of support every time these legislators bow to lobbying pressure and essentially copypasta their last draconian bill and rename it without any effort at all. How are you supposed to fight this kind of system (a term I generally avoid in this kind of context, but is rather fitting), when it's painfully obvious that the common man really has far too little say in government?
because his economic policies would result in widespread poverty
But here you are wrong. With SOPA, the public at large managed to find -- finally, I might add -- the supreme spot where to exercise influence over legislation. See, if corporations control politics, it's no use trying to influence politics directly. But if we can influence the politics corporations push for, which we demonstrably can, we can influence politics. Therefore, your point that people don't matter anymore is false.
... In other news, the Senator woke up to find the ghost of internet past in his room, carrying a very long chain, each one forged from a civil liberty removed.... Rogers dismissed the entire affair as turbulent, and was shortly after killed by a mob of angry young boys on crutches, which is how Dickenson would have ended it if he'd had to role play with Rogers, who has the character flaw "Turbulent."
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
Fixing the problem of corporations having more power over the government than citizens by voting for a libertarian is like hiring a Catholic Priest to protect your children from pedophiles...
Historically, Democratic presidents have closed the gap between rich and poor and overall increased income for the middle class It's too bad they've been becoming more Republican lately.
Wait... we're still pretending there's an actual difference between the Republicans and Democrats now? Both clearly want the same thing; more spending, more debt, more rules. The only difference is what each side makes it's partisan points off of; Republicans like spending money on guns and subsidies to their rich backers, and Democrats like spending money on entitlements and subsidies to their special interest groups. Both sides like passing new laws that benefit whoever's bribed them, and neither likes tearing down laws, unless it's a specific law that's especially unpopular with their buddies. Neither likes going after the debt, since there's no political points to be made there; except in accusing the other side for not doing enough about it, and thus to attack the other side's spending preferences. Both sides are essentially doing the same thing, so the overall direction of things remains the same; the only 'change' is that whoever's winning at the moment can throw more tax money at their buddies.
No, the only difference is that Democrats (before Obama) would tax and spend. The Republicans would borrow and spend, while claiming to be more fiscally responsible.
Learn to love Alaska
Free corporations of any government oversight and you have Cyberpunk 2020 - corporations become independent states with their own military and law enforcement agencies. Unlikely? Well, the SFPD has already been used as a private police force but that was at least questionable and a few people had some explaining to do. If corporations are accountable to no one you can be sure that they are going to take full advantage of that. Yes, the current system is broken and governments sit in deep pockets of their corporate sponsors but they have to do something from time to time to please the masses if they want to keep up the appearances of a democratic election process.
That's the single dumbest thing I've read all day, and something I'd expect from an american conservative.
Obama is well to the Right of any centre-left party in Europe or Australia. He'd be comfortable as a conservative in most of these places, actually.
You're either stupid, or a liar.
Why are so many /.ers insisting that Dems are less guilty than the Republicans in this fight we've recently been having over internet freedom.
Not less guilty - "Differently" guilty.
The Republicans want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as mindless zombie serfs to the Corporate Police state.
The Democrats want to take our money and freedoms and, ideally, would have us all living as politically correct zombies who don't want to float to the top (and aggressively push down those who do).
Both sides "hate our freedom" far more than the bogeyman of the week, and will take any steps necessary to strip us of what little sense of individuality we cling to.
Because he's a thoroughly marginalized, radical, pretend libertarian, with well documented racist views? In other words, what sane person who values their vote as a tool for positive change would vote for such a man?