Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
How does surrendering our freedom out of fear match up with our motto?
The pace is accelerating.
We need some kind of Tracking-Data-Armageddon security breach to make the common citizens wake up and realize that we're all just going to stare at each other in a dystopian fishbowl forever while everything just becomes more unfair.
(Satire)
That's all I can type now because I used up my monthly ascii character quota on two tweets of data for $99.95.
(/Satire)
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
I see this phrase every time this sort of bill comes up where they claim that one group or another won't abuse the law. After some thought, I decided I agreed with their assessment. All this means is that the law is originally intended to be used in that way, if it's the intent of the law, it isn't abuse to use it that way.
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.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
To not arrest people and throw them in jail for merely speaking (Sedition Acts) or suspected terrorists (round-up of asian-Americans). We said it would never happen again, and yet we are going down that same path (indefinite detainment for mere suspicion).
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Here
Pass it on.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
> even if the people who write the law have only good intentions, it provides substantial legal cover to others who might not
It's important to remember; It's difficult to grant broad new powers to government or corporations and confine these powers only to the people who agree with your personal philosophy.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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
They told me if I voted for John McCain, we'd see even more invasions of privacy than under George W. Bush, and they were right!
Unfortunately I speak from experience. I have been in the right, and stuck up for my rights many times. ... and no, I'm not stupid, but you can bet your ass I am stubborn as hell and outraged that the cops constantly piss on the graves of so many men who valiantly fought for the freedoms they spit on daily.
It hasn't worked out well even once. What you are proposing doesn't work in the real world. On TV the cops are very careful about following the rules. In reality they believe that the rules are there to use when it is convenient, and ignore when it is not. In the situation you just described the absolute best * that you can hope for is going to court several times over the course of several months followed by a jury trial with a not guilty, at which point a lawyer will tell you with a straight face that - in the eyes of the law - even though you are presumed innocent until and unless convicted, the fact that you were found not guilty does not mean that the court has found you innocent. The charge will appear on your record when an employer runs a background check (in most if not all states.) The person doing the hiring will assume that you were guilty and they just didn't prove it, or at the very least that you must have done something wrong to be arrested.
* There is an extremely slight chance the case will be dropped, but that almost never happens even when the police report contradicts other provable facts. In one case I had, the DA actually told the cop that what he wrote made it clear I was not guilty, at which point the cop was allowed to file an amended report with the additional lies needed to tie it all up (The car was stuck in a snowbank in the driveway (True) was changed to the car was stuck halfway in the driveway and half way in the street [The lie they needed (TM).]
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
....The president could then define what treatments must be covered, what may not be covered, what might not be paid for by gov and so forth....
You mean as private insurers currently do?
Yes, please do call your reps. If if you're like me and "bipartisan" isn't granular enough, here's the break down so we know who to blame:
The Patriot Act - 2001 (Yeas / Nays / Not Voting):
House of Representatives:
Republicans: 211 / 3 / 5 (96%)
Democrats: 145 / 62 / 4 (68%)
Independents: 1 / 1 / 0 (50%)
Senate:
Republicans: 49 / 49 / 0 (100%)
Democrats: 48 / 1 / 1 (96%) - Hooray for Russ Feingold
Independents: 1 / 0 / 0 (100%)
CISPA cosponsors (from your link):
Republicans: 86 (out of 242, 35%)
Democrats: 26 (out of 190, 13%)
SOPA had 16 of each on the list, but had various joining dates and withdrawals. I'd like to see the data for the Patriot reauthorization votes, but don't have time right now.