CISPA Bill Obliterates Privacy Laws With Blank Check of Privacy Invasion

MojoKid writes "At present, the government's ability to share data on its citizens is fairly restricted, insomuch as the various agencies must demonstrate cause and need. This has created a somewhat byzantine network of guidelines and laws that must be followed — a morass of red tape that CISPA is intended to cut through. One of the bill's key passages is a provision that gives private companies the right to share cybersecurity data with each other and with the government 'notwithstanding any other provision of law.' The problem with this sort of blank check clause is that, even if the people who write the law have only good intentions, it provides substantial legal cover to others who might not. Further, the core problem with most of the proposed amendments to the bill thus far isn't that they don't provide necessary protections, it's that they seek to bind the length of time the government can keep the data it gathers, or the sorts of people it can't collect data on, rather than protecting citizens as a whole. One proposed amendment, for example, would make it illegal to monitor protesters — but not other groups. It's not hard to see how those seeking to abuse the law could find a workaround — a 'protester' is just a quick arrest away from being considered a 'possible criminal risk.'"

Comments

Resisting Arrest

[Zero__Kelvin]

It actually happens from time to time (at least in Massachusetts, USA) that a person is charged with one and only one crime, to wit: resisting arrest. I actually know a person to whom this actually happened and he was found guilty. So at least in Massachusetts, they can simply arrest you for resisting arrest. You don't need to commit any actual crime.

Re:Resisting Arrest

[cpu6502]

Solution: Don't resist arrest. Even if the cop is full of shit, cooperate with him by letting him place handcuffs on you. And then sue him for thousands later. (You don't have to win; you just have to inconvenience the cop as badly as he inconvenienced you.)

1. Become lawyer
2. Visit prisons every day
3. Profit$

Re:Resisting Arrest

[Khyber]

"Simply because you think you didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you just cause to resist the arresting officer."

Yes, it does. That is what a court is for.

“When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense, his assailant is killed, he is justified.” Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80; Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

Re:Resisting Arrest

[Khyber]

Oops, slashdot ate part of my comment.

To add to that: “These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence.” Jones v. State, 26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State, 43 Tex. 93, 903.

Sign the Petition

[CanHasDIY]

Here

Pass it on.

POTUS Opposes the Bill

[milbournosphere]

Looks like the president is threatening to veto. http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-threatens-to-veto-cispa-cybersecurity-bill-citing-privacy-concerns/2012/04/25/gIQAkS3khT_story.html

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave?

[reboot246]

Don't worry. They've already found an $INTERNAL_ENEMY - patriot groups, militia groups, returning vets, in short almost anybody who disagrees with the government.

Re:Despair is starting to set in

[Anonymous Coward]

It is in his best interests to do so. It is an election year after all.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave?

[CanHasDIY]

Technically, the motto is "In God We Trust". Don't worry, Obama forgot too :-)

No, it's not; the actual national motto is

E
Pluribus
Unum

"Out of many, One."

Re:Despair is starting to set in

[X0563511]

[citation provided], asshole.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave?

[wiedzmin]

Because we won World War II

It amuses me to no end that Americans think that they won World War II.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave?

[artor3]

No, they didn't. Not really, anyway. Because aside from a stretch of a few months, Republicans always had the filibuster, and that's all they needed.

Re:Home of the free and the land of the brave?

[Tancred]

So much wrong or misleading in a short comment.

First, Democrats have had a majority in the Senate since 2007, so 2 Bush years and 3+ Obama years.
Second, they had a majority in the House for 4 years, 2 under Bush and 2 under Obama.

So that's 2 years they had majorities in the Senate and House while holding the Presidency. The President of course has a veto, so that's a key ingredient to getting anything through. The House is fairly strictly majority rule. The Senate, by current rules (since the 70's) allows the minority to block bills unless 3/5 of the full Senate (i.e. 60 Senators) vote for cloture. Use of that tactic has risen dramatically since the Democrats retook the majority in 2007. So when you claim that the Republicans didn't block anything, that's just outright false.

See the Senate records on how often cloture votes were held to break a filibuster. See the big jump?

2011-now : 48 (D)
2009-2010 : 91 (D)
2007-2008 : 112 (D)
2005-2006 : 54 (R)
2003-2004 : 49 (R)

You can still be against the bills in question. Hell, you can be proud of the R's for blocking them. But don't deny it's happening.

I've heard the "control of congress" tactic be used very misleadingly. If every Republican and barely enough Democrats vote down a bill, you can be technically correct to say that the majority Democrats could have passed the bill. But when you look closer and see 90+% of Democrats and 0% of Republicans voting for it, it's clear which party is more responsible for the bill not passing.