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'm not sure I see the issue here. An officer can arrest you if he has good cause to (you match the description of a suspect in the area, etc.). This is the original reason you are being arrested. It may later be determined that you didn't commit a crime, and then no charges are filed.
If, however, you resist this arrest, you are then charged with resisting arrest. Simply because you think you didn't do anything wrong doesn't give you just cause to resist the arresting officer.
You don't need to commit any actual crime.
You consider resisting arrest not an 'actual crime'? Are you saying that officers don't have the authority to arrest people?
Here
Pass it on.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Are you saying that officers don't have the authority to arrest people?
Officers have authority to arrest people ONLY IF:
- the officer has seen you commit an offence;
- someone charges you with having committed an offence and gives an undertaking to prosecute the charge;
- the officer finds you disturbing the peace;
- she/he reasonably suspects you have committed or are about to commit an offence or breach of the peace.
The law also states that you must be told in simple language WHY YOU ARE BEING ARRESTED. Simply having the thug in blue announce "that's it, you're under arrest" is not valid.
This is lost on most of the right-wing assholes who worship the thugs-in-blue, however.
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?
This is lost on most of the right-wing assholes who worship the thugs-in-blue, however.
I dont know any right-wing assholes that worship the thugs in blue, and Im a right wing asshole. Seriously, why does this always end up being a left/right issue? Maybe left-wing assholes think its OK to abuse right-wing assholes and vice versa, but I'd hazard to say "this is lost on people whose party affiliation is more important than their objectivity' which seems to be just about everyone these days. I was 100% with you until that last sentence sand-bagged any credibility you built up to that point.
"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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
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.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Dude, you have some serious misapprehensions about the right wing. Supporting law enforcement doesn't mean supporting lawbreaking by police or other government agents.
In theory, but in practice it does seem to mean exactly that. I wouldn't say that it's unique to conservatives, but to authoritarians. Authoritarians are more likely to be conservatives than liberals, though.