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?
Why... why didn't you vote for Ron Paul...
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?
Either we all stop buying movies and music for a few years so the MPAA and RIAA go bankrupt, or we shoot them all... I'm fine either way.
...shoutdown the politicians that would suggest the government has a right in the first place. Always hold them accountable. (thats the goal)
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
Mike Rogers: "The will of the people will no longer be of any concern to us. I have just received word that democracy has been dissolved permanently. The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away forever."
Barack Obama: "But that's impossible! How will we maintain control without the illusion of people having a voice?"
Mike Rogers: "The regional CEO's now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local populations in line. Fear of having their personal information leaked with immunity."
Barack Obama: "Excellent. Everything is proceeding exactly as I have forseen it..."
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
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. SOPA/PIPA had some bipartison support (and opposition) but it was mostly the Democrates bill. Check out this informative wikipedia article. Both sides are equally full of currupt assholes stop giving one side a free pass just because you think they're ideallistically superior. Idealism doesn't mean shit when you have two wolves (the politcal parties) and a sheep (the people) deciding what's for dinner. They mainly just argue about how they're going to cook us.
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.
Let me point out what that would look like: Remember Gabrielle Giffords? A judge and a rep were shot, and a completely innocent kid got killed at the same time. You're talking about that times a thousand?
When Giffords was shot, we, as a nation, decided we didn't like that. (Or was the outpouring of sympathy just a fabrication by corporate-owned media?)
I'm sure your revolution will be completely different than that because your revolution will be based on rational grievances like copyright law, rather than schizo lunacy. And you'll only go after those awful, horrible, oppressors who no one likes. Also, your marksmanship is so much better that little kids won't get killed in your crossfire.
There's a perfect xkcd for my sig but I'm too lazy to look it up. sudo someone go find it.
Left and Right are completely irrelevant when it comes to civil liberties. One thing that the vast majority of both parties
In the US, both major parties are right wing. One is just more extreme than the other. There is exactly one moderate in Congress, Bernie Sanders.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
We don't need a new government. We need the old government. You know, the one of the people, by the people, and FOR the people? The one that had a constitution that said no torturing would ever be allowed. Where the constitution said the government could never arrest anyone without just cause and a warrant issued by a judge. Where no one could be searched (or wiretapped) without just cause and a warrant issued by a judge. The one where if the government did arrest anyone they could not be held incognito (disappeared) and had to be allowed access to their lawyers, visitors and family?
You know, the one that used to be THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
As for the parents comment that a revolution only puts extremist nutcases in power (what he really meant) :
Yep, Just like, oh, I don't know... THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION ??
Its time to save ourselves people. We need a new political party that doesn't follow the examples of any of the existing political parties. Not the republicans, or the democrats, or the libertarians or the greens.
No government is ever perfect. The USA's older government had its problems too, corruption, discrimination and the like, but the current government has completely abandoned even the pretense of following the constitution and is becoming a totalitarian state. And it happened (is happening) under both the Bush and Obama administrations
We need a political party that represents the original intent of the constitution: THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE CREATED EQUAL, AND THAT THIS DEMOCRACY SHALL NOT PERISH FROM THIS EARTH.
The initial goals of this party would be:
Step 1 - pass laws declaring that no company has the same rights as a human
Step 2 - make lobbying by businesses illegal
step 3 - make taking any gifts, no matter how small, even lunch, a felony for any law making representative, local, state, or federal.
step 4 - make it illegal to pass any law that exempts any law making representatives,( local, state, or federal) from laws the rest of the population has to follow.
step 5 - pass a law that says that any laws passed by any law making representative, (local, state, or federal) which increase the benefits (pay, health ins etc..) will not be applied to any of the reps in office at the time the law is passed. It will only be applied to the next rep to take that same office. So if a rep is in office at the time a salary increase is passed, they do not get that increase, Ever. Their pay and benefits are stuck at the level they were at when they entered office, except for any increase that wew passed before they got elected or appointed. Note that says "before elected or appointed" not "before taking office"
Step 6 - pass a law which makes it illegal for anyone who gives or attempts to give a rep a gift or a bribe to ever own or run or manage a business or part of a business again in their lifetime.
Step 7 - make quid pro quo exchanges a felony with a lifetime sentence.
step 8 - form an auditing corp branch of government. These individuals must be willing to have every moment of their life recorded, be well paid, and will have the power to investigate anyone, or anything at anytime for any kind of corruption. They will have the power to ask for and immediately receive any information they ask for. And if they do not receive it, they have the power to bring in any branch of the military they need to enforce their requests.
Step 9 - Remove all judges who cannot separate themselves from any childhood religious indoctrination from the Supreme court. Indeed, any Judge who cannot, should be immediately replaced by an Atheist (satan worshipping, baby eating etc.. ). Note - the vast majority of the US population is Protestant Christian. Why then does the the Supreme Court of all the land consist of 6 catholics and 3 jews? These people were all raised in religious cultures which indoctrinate them to polarized, extremeist, fantasy based views of reality. Examples - "God gave the country to us for our exclusive use! Even though most of us lef