Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CISPA Sponsor Says Protests Are Mere 'Turbulence'

Posted by Soulskill on from the don't-make-us-shut-down-the-internet-again-buddy dept.

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."

11 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Constituants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:Constituants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Corporations make donations while citizens just whine and bitch. He knows who butters his bread.

    2. Re:Constituants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A new government put in place by a revolution will be stacked to the limit with bizarre extremists and arseholes who could never make it to power under democracy. The most likely outcome is that you'll get some unstable maniac in charge, with no limits on his power.

      Revolution is not a magic "reset the government" button. It's a form of election that puts a disproportionately high number of votes on those willing to kill, regardless of their reasons for wanting to do so.

    3. Re:Constituants. by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So much for the idea that politicians effected the will of the people.

      What's bizarre at this point is how is it possible that so many people don't already understand that. I think it's sufficiently clear that the government is not a tool for the people and that democracy doesn't allow changing that.

      Protests have no effect. Votes have no effect. Terrorism has no effect. This is capitalism, only money has an effect. If you don't have large amounts of money, you are a production machine and your opinion matters as much as that of a cow.

      The only way of stopping the absolute power of money in capitalism is revolution. Anything else is fruitless crying.

    4. Re:Constituants. by demachina · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "you'll get some unstable maniac in charge. . . those willing to kill"

      Yea we sure need to avoid letting anyone grab power who might:

      A. Execute people, including U.S. citizens, women and children, without a trial, like with UAV's and Hellfire missiles
      B. Torture people
      C. Lock people up indefinitely without a trail
      D. Snatch people all over the world, put black bags over their heads, drug them, and render them to various dictatorships for indefinite detention and torture, and occasionally snatch the wrong people, oops
      E. Start long, expensive wars under false pretenses, that kills hundreds of thousands of people and bankrupt the U.S.
      F. Engage in massive electronic spying on citizens without a warrant or court oversight

      Yep, we definitely don't want any wild eyed revolutionaries grabbing power and doing that shit .

      --
      @de_machina
    5. Re:Constituants. by guises · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What? Historical perspective is all well and good, but history doesn't change from person to person. I don't think I'm following this conversation anymore.

      Clinton and Chavez are not good examples of leaders which came to power after revolutions because they did not come to power after revolutions. That's all there is to it. Don't get all metaphysical on me, it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.

    6. Re:Constituants. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      "... the only violence done was done to us."

      They say smoking pot damages memory, and in your case it seems true.

      I guess you don't remember the Weather Underground, or the Black Panthers.

      I was there too, and I wasn't stoned. You have a selective memory which is quite inaccurate.

  2. You only had to listen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Why... why didn't you vote for Ron Paul...

  3. Same Shit, Different Day by Transist · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

  4. We have two choices to make it go away.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  5. Re:Wait a procorporation teet sucking Republican R by stms · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.