Slashdot Mirror


House Passes CISPA

wiedzmin writes "The House approved Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act with a 248 to 168 vote today. CISPA allows internet service providers to share Internet 'threat' information with government agencies, including DHS and NSA, without having to protect any personally identifying data of its customers, without a court order. It effectively immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for disclosing customer information, grants them anti-trust protection on colluding on cybersecurity issues and allows them to bypass privacy laws when sharing data with each other."

616 comments

  1. First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    George Orwell

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml Handy list of the reps who voted for this turd.

    2. Re:First by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      First. George Orwell

      I think you mean 1,984th?

    3. Re:First by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Thanks. Good to see that my rep seems to be doing ok so far. Against CSIPA, against SOPA/PIPA, and a couple of other bills that were important. Go Honda!

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0

      You're welcome, Captain Fuckchunk.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    5. Re:First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatenedâ"again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power."
      http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    6. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      All of you "both parties are equally bad" fuckwads take a look at the D/R breakdown on this list.

      All of you "Ayes" in the "Democratic" row, wtf? You should be ashamed.

    7. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sounds like the NSA is right on track to get all the legal requirements ready for them before switching on their new data center out West.

    8. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Both parties aren't equally bad, but the difference is still coke and pepsi. One group stabs you in the back, one stabs you in the front. Take your pick.

    9. Re:First by Moryath · · Score: 5, Informative

      TL;DR version - CISPA is how "Total Information Awareness" and spying on every US citizen without cause becomes legal.

      What's really sad is that the current Supreme Court couldn't even be counted on to assert the 4th amendment if this got challenged in court. After all, 5 of those senile delinquents recently ruled that you can be strip-searched for jaywalking.

    10. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I guess this onion video is more truth then satire now.
      http://www.theonion.com/video/cias-facebook-program-dramatically-cut-agencys-cos,19753/

    11. Re:First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All of The Onion is more truth than satire.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    12. Re:First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      "Four American Troops Tragically Killed Along With 23 Afghanis"

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    13. Re:First by rhook · · Score: 1

      28 years later than he predicted.

    14. Re:First by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      It took a while for the technology to get us there, but through much patience and perseverance we can finally make his vision a reality!

    15. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't see what this has to do with pigs running a farm... o.O

    16. Re:First by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now we'll see if Obama keeps his promise
      (veto the bill).
      I'm not holding my breath.

      In other news: Megaupload will likely Not be prosecuted by the U.S. Government because the judge ruled the government has no authority to "serve" a foreign company. Bad news: The U.S.G. still wins because they've destroyed the company, so RIAA and MPAA got their money's worth when they bribed the politicians to act as their puppets and kill megaupload.

      I can't help wondering if the same tactic will be used in the future against sites or persons that Hollywood/the record companies desire to be silenced. No doubt CISPA will make that task so much easier.

      Danm Fcukers.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    17. Re:First by someSnarkyBastard · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not to feed the troll here but actually it breaks down as thus:
      Republicans:
              Yea - 206
              Nay - 28
              Not Voting - 7

      Democrats:
              Yea - 42
              Nay - 140
              Not Voting - 8

      Percentage-wise it breaks down as 28% Dems approved the bill vs 85% Repubs supporting.

    18. Re:First by shoehornjob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy.

      And in the 00's it triumphed over privacy. And we allowed all of this to happen by not standing up for our rights. Apathy rules.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    19. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would rather not see it coming, I'll take Coke.

    20. Re:First by Ded+Bob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If most Republicans were against it, then most Democrats would have been for it. Define *it* to be almost anything.

    21. Re:First by Dan541 · · Score: 3, Informative

      By "cybersecurity issues" they really mean "piracy".

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    22. Re:First by quacking+duck · · Score: 1

      The one in front. They'd at least have the guts to do it to my face.

    23. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has always been a reality. You need to heal your mind of the delusions of a time when freedom was not slavery.

    24. Re:First by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      I just read a post by a Wikipedia staffmember that said "CISPA is not a bad bill" and then justifies his position.
      It makes me wonder who bribed the wiki corporation & staff to spread that lie.
      No wonder they didn't protest it.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    25. Re:First by wonkavader · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think it's worse than that. I think the dems didn't vote for it because they knew there was enough votes in the Republican camp to carry it. If there weren't, then they would have been required to vote for it.

      They all have the same handlers, after all.

    26. Re:First by satanclause · · Score: 1

      I can see a definite correlation - and to inmates running the asylum!

    27. Re:First by DuranDuran · · Score: 1

      Yep. Cassius or Brutus? Pick Cassius every time.

      --
      "You can justify anything by putting it in quotes, adding a famous name and making it a sig" - Albert Einstein
    28. Re:First by CanHasDIY · · Score: 3

      How about, I'd rather not get fucking stabbed. $deity, what kind of spineless, unthinking drone just stands there while some motherfucker stabs them???

      Oh, right...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    29. Re:First by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      They all have the same handlers, after all.

      You mean Goldman Sachs?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    30. Re:First by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Sounds like the NSA was right on track to get all the legal requirements ready for them before switching on their new data center out West.

      FTFY.

      Even if Obama does veto it, the alphabet agencies will have plenty of time to make copies of all our info before it even hits his desk.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    31. Re:First by _xeno_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You might also want to check on why your rep voted against it. Mine voted against CISPA too.

      Why?

      Because it didn't go far enough. He essentially wanted it to include an Internet kill switch to stop cyber threats. He did at least mention privacy concerns but one thing is clear: We need an Internet kill switch! We need government regulation describing the exact security software you must be required to buy to place a computer online!

      So check up on your reps. They may have voted "no," but you may not like the reason why.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    32. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd have really gone with "1984 bitches!"...that's just me.

    33. Re:First by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Any attempt to stop them using legal means will fail, why? because all you have is the classic "lesser of two evils" and since the megacorps need only cut a check to the winner and BOTH sides have a raging hard on for more power. Whether we like it or not the net WILL become a shopping network with cameras everywhere, no different than going to the mall.

      So the only way to win is not by legal means, but technical. What we need is to wrap everything in encryption and/or to overload the system with crap so that any data they gather will be buried in shit. Sadly projects like freenet and tor, originally designed to help those under dictatorships, will be needed by those in the USA, so lets support them in every way we can because they won't stop until the net is nothing but cable, just shopping and propaganda.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    34. Re:First by Minter92 · · Score: 1

      sweet at least my rep voted no

    35. Re:First by davydagger · · Score: 1

      which is probably what they are doing in the first place, who knows what might have come up at the trial. Just imagine if they asked Chris Dodd to take the stand, being a former senator, how many people could his testimony indite?

    36. Re:First by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Pepsi is insane and EVIL. It's going to destroy this country and all of western civilization. This is a matter of self defense and survival.
      Pepsi.
      Must.
      Be.
      Destroyed.

      I have given $30,000 to the anti-Pepsi Super-PAC. I just wish I could afford to give more.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    37. Re:First by MasterHundinco · · Score: 0

      better one with pretty graphs and links to the actual reps and what state they are from! http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192

    38. Re:First by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Random fact: 20 years after running an advert saying 'Why 1984 won't be like 1984' a computer company introduced a flat screen computer with a built-in camera. I wondered if the answer to their original comment was 'delays in R&D'.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    39. Re:First by devilsdean · · Score: 1

      I hate to see people I voted for supporting this pile of garbage. I appreciate the information.

    40. Re:First by Rogerborg · · Score: 2

      Blow the dust off of your credit card and donate to the EFF and ACLU, since "democracy" is now essentially Government Inc. versus the representatives of We the People in the courts. It pains me that we have to fight a rearguard via lawyers, but I don't see any other practical means.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    41. Re:First by milbournosphere · · Score: 1

      We give congresscritters a lot of crap, so I wanted to give credit where credit is due. Thanks to my rep (Rep. Susan Davis(CA)) for voting no on this piece of crap legislation.

    42. Re:First by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 1

      Here's a cleaned up text version on pastebin from the XML
      http://pastebin.com/DjFNWweK

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    43. Re:First by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Thank you for that. The most telling part is at the very top:

      Republican 206 yes 28 no 7 abstain
      Democratic 42 yes 140 no 8 abstain

      Er, guys, didn't you conservative types say the Republicans are the ones trying to protect your freedoms and the Democrats are hell-bent on a police state? These numbers tell me the exact opposite.

    44. Re:First by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      After all, 5 of those senile delinquents recently ruled that you can be strip-searched for jaywalking

      Stop exaggerating. They ruled that it is acceptable to strip search someone before entering the prison population, nothing more. If someone gets such a search for jaywalking, that's an issue with the local law. There are way too many details for the supreme court to, in one ruling, sort out when it is and isn't acceptable (among other things, whether a jail can handle keeping searched inmates away from those deemed protected from such searches). The threshold for needing a search of course varies by location, so a jail with no gangs (far lower risk of people smuggling things in) might not need any searches, while a jail in an area with a significant smuggling problem might need to search almost anyone. The Supreme Court made the right call- take it up with your local government if you think they're too liberal with the strip searches.

    45. Re:First by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I'd say CISPA was just legalizing it after the fact.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    46. Re:First by T+Murphy · · Score: 1

      To clarify my position, I think Congress should work on a bill to restrict/ban strip searches for those held in jail for under two weeks (or along those lines). That would allow for proper discussion, and provide a proper timetable and perhaps funding to help make any needed changes to accomodate the less-searched inmates. Yes, strip searches are a concern, but the Supreme Court is the wrong tool to use to fix the problem.

    47. Re:First by Isaac+Remuant · · Score: 1

      Not always apathy though. Fear induced impotence has a great responsibility in lowering the odds of any resistance to authority. And for those who are bold even in the face of huge adversity, there's always surveillance followed by violence.

      --
      "Science can amuse and fascinate us all, but it is engineering that changes the world. " - Asimov.
    48. Re:First by pfbram · · Score: 1

      Well, at least government could more easily clamp down on white-collar crime, lending fraud, dirty CIA/drug banks, find missing e-mails, recover billions of disappeared money over the various wars that have been fought, excessive corporate influence, foreign influence, etc. Hahaha -- just kidding.

    49. Re:First by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      That's the Republicans.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    50. Re:First by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      I'm not holding my breath.

      It's a good thing, specially if you want to see the outcome of this before you suffocate.

    51. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This bill, like many of the security procedures implemented since 9/11, is founded on good intentions, but fails to actually exhibit adequate proof of it's effective prevention of crime. While sparse evidence supports it's efficacy, numerous reports complain of it's alienation of decent citizens and even those worse religious and/or race matches a profile. The troubled souls who wish to inflict damage, provided needed determination and aptitude, have many avenues to circumvent such obstructions. It essentially harms the people who it was intended to protect and potentially propels our society towards an unwanted Holocaust like nightmare. Failing short in the same ways, this bill only provides legal protection to bypass all privacy provisions, to individuals deemed a threat. Who determines what is a threat?

      You cant just violate privacy laws of citizens/visitors deemed a threat, by some transparent judgement of risk. It singles citizens out and provides a societal structure vulnerable to exploitation, by it's leaders. On the other side of the coin, we are no longer members of tightly-knit tribes, like our ancestors, who were able to effectively access risk and respond accordingly. Being as populated as we have become, it is easy for malicious people to cause societal damages without detection, increasingly more unlike our origins. Our communication networks, with their ever-improving sophistication and span, provide the conduit to tunnel the intel required to improve our societal security. Please though, don't single people out the way current practice proceeds. Log everyone's actions, storing the logs on mirrored servers distributed to differing institutions (utilizing measures to prevent log tampering, by elected officers or intruders), under different control. By everyone, I mean all crime capable entities- citizens, visitors, all levels of government (with boards to oversee the transformation of events to metaphors, if needed to preserve national security), all businesses, banks, non-profits, and even churches. Allow citizens to view elected officials logs, without restraint or unnecessary effort (unless it is to detriment of national security- to be determined by a third-party entity) so they too can be held accountable for their actions or inaction. Increase the processing of paper money's serial number at every transaction possible to increase accountability. Allow individuals effortless access to their dossier and an ability to choose access rights of their information, but allowing their info to be processed anonymously for societal statistics (for government use only, unless otherwise specified by citizen) and possible red-flags detection for board oversight.

      Of course people will find a way to circumvent these systems, but most judicial proceedings will be processed more rapidly with the improved and reliable evidence such a system will provide. Elected powers will be held to even more diligent observation, preserving accountability whose absence tempts even the most honest human to abuse their power for illegal activity. Convicted criminals have to publicly disclose their dossier, which provisions to alert nearby citizens if appropriate. It's hard to not want such a system. It would be interesting to see how such a system would highlight the governments success in discouraging crimes with the current system of enforcement and reintegration. Information has the power to make positive changes to society, if it is the intention to improve societal health. If it is the intention to create a society so conducive to crime, that the capture, conviction, and fine collection become as easy (and more sustainable) than picking oranges off the tree, then accountability of political powers would not be desired. I see potential in a nation wide reality show, if the proper checks and balances are present.

    52. Re:First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      It's not founded on good intentions. Any more than a bank offers you a loan, because they are interested in you housing your children.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    53. Re:First by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      There was going to be an audit at the Pentagon, to trace the missing TRILLIONS that Rumsfeld was called to task over.

      A pity that those very auditor's offices were destroyed by an attack on 9/11.

      I guess the Lord does have mysterious ways.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    54. Re:First by berashith · · Score: 1

      I thanked mine anyway. I have a feeling from previous votes that he feels the same as yours. I sent a thank you letter for the no vote, and for standing up for the protections of the constitution, and the privacy of citizens. should get a chuckle out of his staff at least.

    55. Re:First by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      In other news: Megaupload will likely Not be prosecuted by the U.S. Government because the judge ruled the government has no authority to "serve" a foreign company. Bad news: The U.S.G. still wins because they've destroyed the company, so RIAA and MPAA got their money's worth when they bribed the politicians to act as their puppets and kill megaupload.

      I can't help wondering if the same tactic will be used in the future against sites or persons that Hollywood/the record companies desire to be silenced. No doubt CISPA will make that task so much easier.

      Danm Fcukers.

      Can't MU, you know, sue us and all now? Maybe in one of those international criminal court dealies that were made for stuff like this. Or how about in New Zealand (for added irony)?

    56. Re:First by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      And SOPA was largely Democrat supported. What's your point? They're both evil, they just switch places on a daily basis.

    57. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Orwell was naive

    58. Re:First by scot4875 · · Score: 1

      Actually, you've got that completely backwards. The Republican party is the one opposed to passing *anything* the Democrats want to do.

      --Jeremy

      --
      Jesus was a liberal
    59. Re:First by Ded+Bob · · Score: 1

      It is not backward, however, I should have said it goes in both directions, especially during an election year. They are both trying to put on a show for voters that the other party is bad.

    60. Re:First by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      "And we allowed all of this to happen by not standing up for our rights."
      I am getting a little tired of drum-beating like this with no reasonable suggestions of how to do it in this situation, under our current system. Short of breaking out the guns and starting a revolt, OR Having a few extra million dollars to give to our congress critters to sway their vote. And if you say "you gotta vote for the right guy" I say bullshit. Once they are in, they do what the want, across party lines. I am starting to believe voting is like the open door-button on an elevator - (you know it does nothing right? (from an otis engineer)) but it's there to make you feel like your in control and you can do something. Politicians see corporate $$$ and the rest is history. They see the Internet a threat to their way of life because us %99 can collude with each other in private. That makes you a criminal. You (we) can't win in a rigged system that puts the needs and desires of it's citizens dead last.

      However I am open to suggestions.

    61. Re:First by Riddler+Sensei · · Score: 1

      It is a joy to see a representative that you voted for actually vote in-line with your views.

    62. Re:First by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      That's just it, we allowed our government to be sold to the highest bidder because no one gives a fuck. Nothing can change until enough people get motivated to do something about it. There was a time when young people would be the ones to change things but they're too busy being complacent like the rest of us. Bummer.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    63. Re:First by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Megaupload will likely Not be prosecuted by the U.S. Government because the judge ruled the government has no authority to "serve" a foreign company.

      Actually it's because the US Government figured out that many of its employees had crucial files store on Megaupload and they are now negotiating to get their files back.

    64. Re:First by StillNeedMoreCoffee · · Score: 1

      Well lets look at the facts then. The Bush Supreme Court has made companies, people (the courts not the democracy)(a capitalistic entity a person, what clearer sign of the triumph of Cap over dem?) There is a ultra-rich and corporate sponsored initiatives to suppress voter turnout, (because, as they have said themselves, a large turnout does not favor the Republican Party), they are moving to remove the right to vote for the poor, students, homeless, non-drivers ... In essence this rich capitalist crowd is saying as you so aptly put it "FU". There has been rolling back of Bankruptcy protections, the arrow is pointing back to debtors prison, one of the reasons we all left Europe where money and ownership trumped peoples lives. Now the constitutional protections from un warranted search and seizure have been relaxed by the courts (not the democracy). It seems that quote is rather correct. Your reaction though seems to either uphold that triumph or discounts the facts about the law and regulations that have changed in the recent years.

    65. Re:First by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I guess we are living in a George Orwellian state. --Sorry A George person who had fantastic fears, including germs. George's legacy lives on

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    66. Re:First by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Most of them have no idea this is going on. there are too many issues and not enough education.
      Most people are just trying to get by from day to day, keeping the boss happy so they don't get fired.

      The system is rigged to create scared, helpless people. It needs to prop people up and embolden them before anything will happen.

      Basically, don't blame this on people. People are going to be people. There's a reason for that, and finding out what that reason is would go a lot farther than pointing fingers.

      --
      -
  2. Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn.

  3. House of Representatives by game+kid · · Score: 5, Funny

    House of Representatives, for peculiar values of "Representatives".

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    1. Re:House of Representatives by fnj · · Score: 1

      You know what I'll bet he DIDN'T vote? I'll bet he didn't vote "present".

    2. Re:House of Representatives by fnj · · Score: 1

      Shitty software inserted above comment in wrong place. Please ignore.

    3. Re:House of Representatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish I had some mod points...

    4. Re:House of Representatives by Imrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      They are representatives, just not of the people that voted for them. They represent the people that paid for their campaigns.

    5. Re:House of Representatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noticing. Nerf them.

    6. Re:House of Representatives by Joce640k · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I like the way it says "CISPA allows internet service providers to share Internet 'threat' information with government agencies".

      "Allows"

      Worded like that it almost sounds like it will be optional...

      --
      No sig today...
    7. Re:House of Representatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you think they aren't "representative"?

      57.5% of them voted "yes" on this. What percentage of the American public do you think supports this piece of shit? I don't actually know the answer, but why do you think it isn't 57.5%?

    8. Re:House of Representatives by KlomDark · · Score: 2

      Just like income taxes are 'voluntary'...

    9. Re:House of Representatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False. They are representatives of the potential swing voters (if any) of their re-election. So, about 5% of the minority who are both allowed to and choose to vote.

    10. Re:House of Representatives by quacking+duck · · Score: 4, Informative

      At least the SCOTUS ruling that political donations = free speech, and can remain anonymous, has made official what we already knew--your vote doesn't matter. Those with money get to "vote" for both sides, so they own whoever wins regardless.

    11. Re:House of Representatives by iamnobody2 · · Score: 2

      for starters i'd be shocked if 57.5% had any idea what CISPA even is

      --
      nobody's perfect
    12. Re:House of Representatives by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know, that's only true as long as the majority of the US population keeps voting for the person who spends the most money...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:House of Representatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not surprising, especially with that great big giant new data center that the NSA is building (built?) in Utah (see http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1). Now they have a legal method to populate their data, again without checks, balances, etc.

      Not that they didn't before, but now it sounds like that ISPs don't even have the illusion of choice anymore.

      Is it just me, or is this getting out of control?

      Pffft, I just posted anonymously - like that is going to do any good anymore....
      #z@#$
      NO CARRIER

    14. Re:House of Representatives by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      I get what you're saying, but...
      Wait, we get to VOTE for corporations now? After all, they'll just shift their money around to pay off that politician.

      Why does this come up? Money is severely corrupting our politics and we have people BLAMING VOTERS for that!? If anything, *that* is a part of the problem.

      --
      -
    15. Re:House of Representatives by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      The people who spend money buying Democrats and Republicans control the media, who have convinced everyone that a vote for anyone not R or D is somehow "wasted". I guess all those people who voted for McCain wasted their votes just like those voting C, L, or G.

      And what the rich (who own the government and the media) aren't going to let you know is that someone you love smokes the plant that's illegality helps keep those rich fuckers rich, and a vote for the Rs and Ds is a vote for a person who wants to jail your loved ones -- or even YOU.

      We are a nation of morons. We have the government we deserve.

    16. Re:House of Representatives by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Corporate donations are spent on election publicity. The bribes (mostly) don't go into a personal fund for the politician, they go to getting that politician reelected. The only reason that corporations have so much influence over politicians is that the politicians know that if their campaign funding is reduced then they will lose the next election. And this is only true because voters are voting for the person who advertises the most, irrespective of their actual policies, opinions, and track record. Take a look at the last 30 years of presidential elections: in every case, the candidate who spent the most won.

      If you want to reduce the influence of money from US elections, you need to educate voters so that they'll vote for the candidate that actually represents their interests and beliefs, not the one with the most flashy soundbite.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    17. Re:House of Representatives by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      You know, that's only true as long as the majority of the US population keeps voting for the person who spends the most money...

      Or,

      You know, that's only true as long as the majority of the US population remains average

      It is theoretically possible to vote ourselves out of this mess, but let's be realistic: the average person is going to remain.... well, average. "Spend the most" isn't a simple sentence. I think people aren't aware just how much impact that spending has on people's information sources. From fake think tanks, to entire news organizations, to hundreds and thousands of web sites and fake blogs each trying their hardest to be the #1 google hit for certain subjects.... it is very difficult to find an objective analysis of complex issues.

      You have to be above average to remain well informed on policy issues and their true impact. That isn't going to change until we get the money out of elections.

      Chicken v. egg situation though.

  4. No Surprise by tirefire · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm gonna take a wild stab here and assume that Ron Paul, R-TX, voted "No" on this shitpile.

    1. Re:No Surprise by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, for whatever reason, he didn't actually vote either way.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    2. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like he didn't vote.

      http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml

    3. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he didn't even bother to vote on it. Kucinich did vote NO, however.

    4. Re:No Surprise by aheadinabox · · Score: 1

      Well, I read the link above, to the roll call of votes. Seems Paul did not vote.

    5. Re:No Surprise by fnj · · Score: 1

      You know what I'll bet Ron Paul DIDN'T vote? I'll bet he didn't vote "present".

    6. Re:No Surprise by GoatCheez · · Score: 1

      Surprisingly it says he didn't vote.

    7. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering he would have voted "no" on civil rights legislation as well, I don't really think his vote either way on this bill says anything good about him.

    8. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, instead he didn't vote at all! Which, ironically, is the same effect as voting "present".

    9. Re:No Surprise by MightyMartian · · Score: 0

      Thank goodness Ron Paul is... somewhere... defending freedom. Perhaps he's busy giving directions to a bus-load of swirly-eyed supporters going to try to create the illusion of wide-spread popularity by crashing another straw poll. You know, something really important.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That pathetic delusional insult to Libertarianism actually thinks he's running for president and needs to keep a foot in both camps... how putrildly adorable.

    11. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Please, actually research his reasons for voting no before you slander him.

      He is absolutely NOT racist, nor does he think it is right to hire based on race. He is very much AGAINST racism.
      The reasons he did not support the bill, in summary, were that he observed that it did nothing to end or prevent racism. It was social pressure, and the market that made racism unpopular and an unprofitable business practice.

      The bill only increased racial tension for with forced integration and giving the government sweeping powers to dictate who private businesses can and cannot hire, stripping even more rights from the American people.

      http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-rights-act/

    12. Re:No Surprise by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Actually, he didn't even bother to vote on it. Kucinich did vote NO, however.

      As did Barney Frank and the Wax Man! It's nice when a couple of my favorite people do the right thing.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    13. Re:No Surprise by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The reason's pretty obvious, and it's the same reason he missed a couple votes this year..... he's busy giving speeches for his campaign (~2000 people per day show up to see him). I think it's a wise move.

      Igniting the fire of liberty in the 15-to-35 year olds, the next generation of politicians and voters, is more important than casting just 1 vote which would not have stopped CISPA from passing.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    14. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paul didn't vote. Guessing he was on the campaign trail, but he did voice his objection to the bill.

    15. Re:No Surprise by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the information; I was hoping it was something like what you stated.

      --
      "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
    16. Re:No Surprise by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      I've met a few black people who would have voted "no" on the 1960s Civil Rights bill too. Why? Because they say it forces them to serve whites in their businesses, and they don't want to. They argue it's private property just the same as their homes, and if government has power to force whites into their private business, then government also has power to force blacks to let whites into their home. (Just in case you doubt me, search youtube and watch the videos posted by black folks.)

      Oh and since this came-up: Did you know there was a Civil Rights Bill in the 1950s? It failed because the Democrats voted it down.

      And also Bills in the 1870s and 1860s, which the Dems voted down (but the Republicans had the majority and passed them).

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    17. Re:No Surprise by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      When President Romney is in charge, I hope you are one of the first he rounds-up and throws in jail as a "suspected terrorist". Or maybe drafts you for his Iran War project. Then as you huddle in your cell or trench, I hope you fall into a stupor and mumble, "I shoulda voted for Ron Paul. I shoulda voted for Ron Paul. I shoulda......"

      Anyone who is opposed to liberty and natural rights deserves nothing less than to experience the tyranny he embraced...... like those Jews or Communists who enthusiastically voted for Hitler and eventually wound-up gassed or shot. "Reap what you have sown."

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    18. Re:No Surprise by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      D and R changes over time. what they were even 20 years ago is not what they are today.

      your post makes little sense, given this fact.

      we have no lefty party anymore. we have 'right' and 'far extreme right'.

      D and R of the previous incarnations are not relevant to what we are stuck with, today.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude! You are all over this thread posting this stuff. Calm down! Chill out on the rhetoric a little! Not everything is the end of the world!

    20. Re:No Surprise by iphinome · · Score: 1

      Godwin, it's not just a good idea, its the law.

    21. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, he was out campaigning even though he lost 3 months ago. maybe he's so old he hasn't realized that he's been irrelevant for years.

    22. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's get herr doctor in the WH instead, so he can have all us blacks rounded up. don't worry, i'll get away because i'm very 'fleet-footed', cause you know, i'm black and all.

    23. Re:No Surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's impossible to get anything useful out of these discussion threads is when every other post is your idiocy. Say your piece and move on; we all get the point -- you like Ron Paul and everyone else sucks. We've heard it a hundred times -- dozens in this thread alone. It's gotten to the point that if your name pops up, in any discussion, I just keep scrolling.

      You make Slashdot worse.

  5. Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of the people that voted for this bill need to be executed for treason.

    1. Re:Treason by Arancaytar · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, executing people for treason is much, much better than our search history being given to the government.

    2. Re:Treason by fnj · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, executing traitors who brazenly break their solemn oath to uphold the constitution WOULD be a positive step.

    3. Re:Treason by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually it is.

      When you're executing someone you're only taking their life.

      When you violate someone's constitutional rights, that's a crime worse than murder. It is taking away the human rights that we're all entitled to and deciding that your profits, your business, and nebulous "threats" are a reason to go through the trash and history of every single person that has never been accused of a crime.

      It's better to have a bomb attack every day -- even on my house -- than to give ISPs the ability to be immune from lawsuits, to share my private data, and to allow the government to decide that you know what, warrants are a pain in the ass after all.

      Those are not the actions of a democratic government, or even a republic. If they aren't ready to put the integreity of the constitution ahead of their meagre lives, then yeah, that's treason. And the US is at war. Hang 'em up in from of the Capitol as a warning to the others.

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
    4. Re:Treason by Firehed · · Score: 1

      I know you're commenting with extreme sarcasm, but I do think that's actually the case. An elected official using their power in a manner designed to undermine the Constitution isn't technically treason by most definitions, but I feel it should be punished just as severely.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    5. Re:Treason by Titan1080 · · Score: 1

      agreed.

    6. Re:Treason by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When you violate someone's constitutional rights, that's a crime worse than murder.

      Please explain how murdering someone does not take away all their natural and constitutional rights. Oppression is neither so complete nor so permanent a state as death. Rights are only relevant to the living.

      Some may choose death over abandoning their principles, for the sake of their own integrity and/or as an example to others, but that is hardly the same thing as claiming that murder is morally superior to oppression. It merely means that you can't safely assume that someone would rather be oppressed than accept the risk (or even certainty) of death—or vise-versa. That is an individual decision, and no one has the right to make that choice for another.

      Whether it is better for a few to die or for many to suffer lesser violations of their rights... one might as well ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Like most matters involving interpersonal preferences, there is no objective answer. So far as I am concerned, however, the only principled answer is that you shouldn't do either—even if other people make difference choices. If there is a way to prevent the deaths without violating anyone's rights, great. If not, we must learn to live with the risk.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    7. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, but then executing your political opponents could become a viable strategy.

    8. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Excellent argument. Thank you for your input.

    9. Re:Treason by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Like most matters involving interpersonal preferences, there is no objective answer.

      It may not be objective, but the vast bulk of society has agreed that torturing somebody every day for 20 years is a worse crime than 'simply' killing them. See the Geneva Conventions for one example of how this is codified.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    10. Re:Treason by tangent · · Score: 1

      Simple: this bill takes these rights away for all 300+ million Americans. At a pen stroke. Poof, gone.

      I don't know how you do your crime calculus on this issue, but it would have to be a pretty strange method for any conceivable level of murder to exceed this level of violation of our rights.

      What is the murder equivalent of the loss of 3e8 rights?

      If this passes and doesn't get repealed, double that cost in lost rights every 74 years, because the crime continues while new Americans are born.

    11. Re:Treason by iphinome · · Score: 1

      Then take it out of party hands. Perhaps a committee for executing traitors. We can call it the committee for public safety.

    12. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's 1 vs many.
        One death to preserve the standard of living for millions.

      Which do you choose?

      Soldier chooses one.
      Scholar chooses one.
      Cowards choose many, because they are afraid to be the one.

      I'll go step further. Lets appease the idiots too.
      I'll step up to the firing line right next to a politician, just to make sure he doesn't get to run.

      I'm willing to die for my belief in a free nation. If you aren't as well, then FUCKING LEAVE AND LET THE REST OF US HAVE OUR FREEDOM.

    13. Re:Treason by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      I don't know how you do your crime calculus on this issue...

      I believe I already said that there is no objective answer, no "crime calculus". You can only compare preferences ordinally, within one individual. Preferences cannot be objectively compared between separate individuals. There is no way to objectively determine whether crime X affecting group A is better or worse than crime Y affecting group B, regardless of X and Y or the sizes of groups A and B. If there were then you could objectively justify aggression against one group on the basis that it reduces aggression overall, but in fact there is no such justification.

      What is the murder equivalent of the loss of 3e8 rights?

      There is no "equivalent". The violation of one right of one person is already too much. You can't justify one violation by weighing it against another, or even many others.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    14. Re:Treason by Cowmonaut · · Score: 1

      When you violate someone's constitutional rights, that's a crime worse than murder.

      Please explain how murdering someone does not take away all their natural and constitutional rights.

      Missing. The. Point.

      Violating someone's Constitutional rights is worse than murder. Why? Because it does not just affect that one person. You let precedence get set that violating X Constitutional right is okay, or not that bad, or whatever and you diminish the rights of every citizen.

      If you murder someone, that one person is dead. The family will mourn and it will still be a horrible tragedy. At the same time, it doesn't immediately diminish the rights of every citizen.

      In any event both are terrible, but I would value the rights in the Constitution for everyone over my life any day.

    15. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're forgetting due process. Congress would have to impeach and try them first. Since most of Congress would naturally see themselves complicit, given an accurate indictment, and thus next on the chopping block, this isn't likely to happen, even when constituents have woken up and are hopping mad, as started happening a few years ago. It's a matter of "who shall cast the first stone?"

      Nothing will change until people start voting the bums out. But look at the leading contenders for Prez (barring Paul, and we're not supposed use the word leading in the same breath as his name, even hypothetically.) You can argue that the process is rigged, and it may likely be, but that won't change until some fresh, savvy blood injects itself into party politics.

      You can argue it's too late for that, but that still doesn't change the fact that we all of us let it happen. You have to have been hiding under a rock for at least the last 30 years not to have seen it coming. True, those of us who said anything then got called crazy, and worse things happened, but sometimes if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, and poops little gobs of duck poop, then, by God, it's a fucking duck.

      Pogo said it best: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Go figure. So go fight the enemy.

    16. Re:Treason by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      Wow. I get moderated into oblivion and at least one "foe" for mentioning that murder is bad.

      Only on Slashdot.

  6. The Founding Fathers ... by Pool_Noodle · · Score: 1

    .. just told a Smug Orwell to shove it when he started the 'I told you so' dance

    --
    "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss
    1. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Interesting

      God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

      --Thomas Jefferson.

      The Founding Fathers knew this would inevitably be a problem long before Orwell was born.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's time for our own regime change.

      I hope NATO is nice enough to help or at least good enough to stay the fuck out of the way.

    3. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      put me down for a couple of pints.

      jr

    4. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except the internet makes his point mute.

      " The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. "
      well, we pretty much can now.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    5. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Pool_Noodle · · Score: 1
      I'll trade one quote for another.

      The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits.

      - Thomas Jefferson.
      Sadly, today's government has forgotten the ideal of leaving the citizens to grow and prosper, instead they choose to blindly and boldly violate the liberties that this country was founded on, for what reason? (I have my opinion) My original joke aside people should be outraged - the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments just took a near crushing blow, and whats worse is that no amount of fact provided to the lawmakers can change their minds, they've been brainwashed by the Corporate funded propaganda (do I even need to point in the direction of RIAA and their games?). [sarcasm]But then again, trying to apply Law that was created in a time before the internet was even a wet dream is nearly impossible.[/sarcasm]

      --
      "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind" - Dr. Seuss
    6. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Rhalin · · Score: 2

      Having access to information does not make one "well informed". One can have access to all the up to the second information and news possible and still " misconceive" the facts. In a way, the internet has made this even more difficult. The raw amount of information available from different sources is even more difficult to process; if not only because of its sheer volume, but also even the amount of detail, spin, and misinformation provided. Instead of only having one or two sources of information to filter and decypher, now you have hundreds, thousands, millions!

      No, this point is even more apt now.

    7. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet *can* make people more informed, but it doesn't *have* to.
      It's just as good at echo-chambering as it is at truly informing.

    8. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Algae_94 · · Score: 1

      That's funny. The American part of NATO would sure as hell be fighting against any revolution, and I'd wager the other NATO members would stay the hell away until they know which way it is heading.

    9. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      Except the internet makes his point mute.

      " The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. " well, we pretty much can now.

      The people can, yes, but most of them don't want to. The 2008 election was a perfect example of that.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    10. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Jefferson was alive today, he would probably be either on top of the FBI terrorist watch list, or perhaps even locked up somewhere on some trumped up charges.

    11. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which Americans do you think should be killed first?

    12. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except the internet makes his point mute.

      " The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. "
      well, we pretty much can now.

      What good is the internet when you aren't even informed enough to know that it's a moot point and not a mute point?

    13. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Informative

      No more so than newspapers or television or radio allowed, and look at how bad those are at supplying good information. The Internet is as full, if not more so, of bad information than the world was before it. The reality is no cure for human stupidity and ignorance exists. What is more, the problem has grown much much worse: there is so much information online, it is literally impossible to know even a small fraction of it, much less figure out what of it is important and what is not. Relying on sites like Slashdot or Reddit doesn't work: they are so full of groupthink, actual open discussion (while it does exist) rarely hits the front page.

      All the people cannot be well informed on everything. Most people don't even know what "well informed" actually looks like. On some issues, yes, but even then, there are always interests controlling the media (even the Internet, yes even Slashdot) that direct people towards their own point of view. And if you continually only hear one side of the news, you will start to believe it. Everyone does: it's human nature. Or they only listen to one side because they already believe it (happens as often as not too). Either way, the Internet isn't a solution. It's practically part of the problem.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    14. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is because of the FCC. A POTUS appointed board. The original mission statement is replaced with two fascist mission statements, the engineers no longer work in the public interest, they work to comfort corporations.

      Take away the choices of the FCC board, and make it be a public vote. (of course the electronic voting machines need to be outlawed, since they are now tied into this insanity)

    15. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the 2010 election actually...

    16. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by bonehead · · Score: 1

      The ones whose names appear on TV with either an (R) or a (D) next to them, for starters.

    17. Re:The Founding Fathers ... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Except that instead of informing ourselves, we download Twilight on Netflix, watch kitteh videos on YouTube, and tell the whole world every time we take a leak on Twitter.

      It may not be that we can't always be well-informed, but it certainly is that we aren't.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  7. wtf is "internet threat information"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, what the fuck does that even mean?

    1. Re:wtf is "internet threat information"? by sjames · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's like smurf. It means whatever the DOJ and LEOs want/need it to mean.

    2. Re:wtf is "internet threat information"? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The smurfs investigating the smurf were able to apprehend the smurf after finding 200 GB of smurf in the smurf's Dropbox account.

      The smurf will be taken to Smurf for smurf interrogation.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:wtf is "internet threat information"? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Smurf that then.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:wtf is "internet threat information"? by sjames · · Score: 1

      That would be it. If it passes, American freedom is royally smurfed.

    5. Re:wtf is "internet threat information"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smurfing_(networking)

    6. Re:wtf is "internet threat information"? by MagicM · · Score: 1

      If you mean "cyber threat information", the definition is part of the bill:

      (6) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION. - The term cyber threat information means information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from -
      (A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or
      (B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

  8. What did you all expect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Internet empowered the "Arab Spring" revolutions world wide.

    The absolute last thing The US Government wants is anything like that here. Gotta prevent it while you can.

    1. Re:What did you all expect? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 2

      That's why the rest of the world calls it "The American Fall".

      (The rest of the world calls the season "Autumn.")

      --

      ---
      ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  9. Really should be a penalty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For members of congress who vote in favor of unconstitutional laws.

    They won't stop trying to pass shit like this until there is some kind of accountability. SOPA went down, now we get this, if this is stopped we'll just get another one, because these people have no incentive not to try again.

    1. Re:Really should be a penalty by Elbereth · · Score: 1

      I agree. I think we need a mechanism for citizens to sue their representatives for treasonous legislation. The problem, of course, is that uncompromising ideologues will clog the court system with such protests. I'm sure there's a working solution, but it probably wouldn't be easy to implement. Anyways, it's probably idealistic and naive to expect that it would even accomplish anything, even if it did get implemented.

  10. "Not voting" by Scareduck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Roll call here. He was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:"Not voting" by fnj · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's better than 248 cunts but not as good as 168 principled representatives. Just not good enough.

    2. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm more worried about the FEMA camps they're activating everywhere and the upcoming martial law at this point.

    3. Re:"Not voting" by shiftless · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

      You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.

      What the fuck did you do for the cause of liberty today?

    4. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By not voting, the estimable Ron Paul did as much as most people posting about it here on /. have done. So he has a bigger microphone, by not voting on it, he did not do his job.

    5. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh gee, maybe he didn't vote because he's RUNNING TO BE PRESIDENT. Then he can veto the hell out of it, unlike the other bought politicians.

    6. Re:"Not voting" by fermion · · Score: 1

      This is the first thing that crossed my mind. He presents himself as someone who is for limited government and personal freedom. In fact when important voltes like this come up, here is no where to be seen, but when there is pork to be gotten he is happily in line. He isn't first in line, but does manage to show up.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    7. Re:"Not voting" by jmactacular · · Score: 1

      "votes"? This is an anomaly. You make it sound like it's a pattern for him. If anyone shows up more to vote against this stuff, it's him.

    8. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah...great...except Obama says he will veto it too.

    9. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because a) he's soo close to becoming president, any day now!!1, and b) how the fuck does he veto something that has already passed?

    10. Re:"Not voting" by LoverOfJoy · · Score: 1

      Like there's any chance of him getting the nomination at this point. Maybe it's time to pack up and return to his day job.

    11. Re:"Not voting" by DJ+Particle · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And notice this vote was actually just short of the 67% majority needed to override a veto. So assuming Obama vetoes it, it would seem it would fail in the re-vote.

    12. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except in this case, where he didn't, and 168 other people did.

    13. Re:"Not voting" by SeaFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      [Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

      You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.

      Actions speak louder than words.

    14. Re:"Not voting" by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      he did the same thing as Ron Paul did today, nothing.

      You really need to get over your Ron Paul man crush.
      He's a guy with a few good ideas, but a lot of nonsense. Especially his economy crap.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    15. Re:"Not voting" by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You might want to actually read his voting record.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    16. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tru dat... how sad...

    17. Re:"Not voting" by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Funny

      He probably just forgot to vote! He's almost 80

    18. Re:"Not voting" by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      This! Him skipping this vote make me put him firmly in the 'fuck this guy' pile. I used to really want him as president, back in my young impressionable years.

      Fuck RON PAUL!!

    19. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

      You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.

      Actions speak louder than words.

      Voting would have been action. A lengthy statement is words. Do you read what you write, or are you like the Representatives that voted for this travesty?

    20. Re:"Not voting" by Soupster · · Score: 5, Informative

      By not voting, the estimable Ron Paul did as much as most people posting about it here on /. have done. So he has a bigger microphone, by not voting on it, he did not do his job.

      They pushed the voting day up by one at the last minute. Ron Paul was campaigning in Texas at the time, it was probably logistically impossible for him to get back in time to vote.

    21. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You sir are guilty of first-order thinking, rather than looking at the secondary and tertiary effects. Two scenarios:

      (1) Ron Paul cancels his four speaking engagements today and tomorrow, pisses-off ~8000 people who will post "Ron sucks" on facebook (which are then read by ~80,000 other people), flies all the way across the west coast to the east coast to cast just *1* vote..... which would have done nothing to stop CISPA from passing anyhow.

      (2) Skip the vote because he knew he could not stop the passage. And instead talk to those 8000 people in Arizona and Texas, ignite their desire to fight for liberty and the Bill of Rights, share that fire across facebook to their ~80,000 followers, and thus provide the foundation that will inspire these people to run for Delegates and Legislature and the Congress, and eventually repeal CISPA, NDAA, and all the other crap that has been passed.

      Had I been Paul, I would have picked scenario 2.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    22. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Who you gonna vote for instead?
      There is nobody else better than Paul.
      I guess you'll vote for banker-funded Romney. Or maybe banker-funded Obama.

      So fuck you right back. You're a "summer
      soldier and sunshine patriot" if you vote for either
      of those tyrants. Just like those who abandoned
      Washington in 1777 when times got rough.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    23. Re:"Not voting" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actions speak louder than words.

      He wasn't voting today because he's at his home with his advisers who are plotting their (succeeding) delegates strategy to challenge Romney for the Republican nomination, so Paul can end the wars and all of the abuses of the Executive Branch (TSA, et. al.), de-fang the Federal Reserve (i.e. stop breaking the economy), veto bad legislation like CISPA, and return the country to a system based on Rule of Law.

      But, yeah, he didn't cast this one vote. You'll have to decide if that's abrogation of duty or not.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    24. Re:"Not voting" by Soupster · · Score: 2

      [Paul] was among the 15 who did not cast a vote. Thanks, Ron.

      You know, he did put out a lengthy statement Monday slamming this Act and calling a lot of negative attention to it.

      Actions speak louder than words.

      The voting day was pushed up by 1 at the very last minute (along with some additional, much worse changes). Ron Paul was in Texas campaigning at the time. I could hardly fault him for not being able to fly across the country to vote at the last minute. Knowing RP, I bet it was logistically impossible for him to get from Tx to Ma in time to vote with the time he was given.

    25. Re:"Not voting" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      In fact when important voltes like this come up, here is no where to be seen

      Since you know these facts, please cite 5 additional important votes like these where he wasn't present.

      'Cause, you know, he might be vacationing in Tahiti, or.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    26. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      (1) He already announced his retirement from Congress.

      (2) According to NBC's Rachel Maddow and other sources, Paul has now won 4 states, and it appears he will win ~10 more over the next few weeks (the states that were won by Gingrich/Santorum are now "freed" to whoever has the most delegates; probably Paul). Plus I expect Maine and Nevada will go to Paul too, since he scored the majority of delegates.

      We're going to have a brokered convention where Romney will not have the 1144 votes to win the nomination. It will be split.

      (3) You don't quit a 26 mile marathon at mile 22. Paul's come all this way, and only has two more months to go. It would be silly for him to quit, especially since he's only ~450 delegates behind Romney, and that gap is closing (see point 2). Paul started the race; he might as well go all the way to the finish line, as he did in 2008.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    27. Re:"Not voting" by FrootLoops · · Score: 1

      This! Him skipping this vote make me put him firmly in the 'fuck this guy' pile.

      Wow, I'm impressed. If you take that much care in all your decision making, in Ron Paul's shoes I would certainly be honored to have your vote for president!!1

      The vote was moved up a day unexpectedly and all the "not voting" people combined wouldn't have changed the outcome. You could at least withhold judgement until knowing his side of the story; perhaps he was campaigning and planned to return for Friday's vote, I dunno (and I'm nearly certain you don't either). But no, nevermind, let's rush to judgement--Fuck RON PAUL! Gah, you even complain about your own past judgement-rushing in the same post you rush to judgement again.

      I'd like to note Paul did not vote "Present" (which means you're not added to the Yea or Nay tally but were around for the official vote). Maybe he does deserve scorn for not voting against it, but I don't have enough info to say, and as far as I can tell neither does anyone here.

    28. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      Why would he veto CISPA? He already signed ACTA. He loves these kinds of laws/treaties.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    29. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, the Republican primary is over. He lost. He really must be delusional or an egomaniac to keep going. It's just getting sad.

    30. Re:"Not voting" by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      There are MANY candidates better than Ron Paul.

      I'm voting for Rocky Anderson.

    31. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      How sneaky of them.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    32. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Since a third party has NEVER won the presidency in the entire history of this republic, you are just throwing-away your vote. The winners have always been the Top 2 parties (Federalist v. Democrat, Democrat v. Whig, or Democrat v. Republican). Never a third party.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    33. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The fact that an overwhelming majority of yes votes comes from Republicans, and even Reps that are normally against such absurd violations of human rights didn't vote no, and given that this is the House, my guess is there's some serious party pressure on this thing, for some reason or another.

    34. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>Dude, the Republican primary is over.

      Does Mitt Romney have 1144 delegates?
      No. Then it's not over. Just as election night is not over until the president scores 50% of the electoral college.

      Romney has ~850.
      Paul has ~400.
      That's including caucus states like Iowa, which TV media likes to pretend don't exist (or just flat-out lie, like claiming Paul won 0 delegates in Iowa). If Paul keeps gobbling-up delegates than Romney will never reach the 1144 he needs.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    35. Re:"Not voting" by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Shit, at this rate our best bet seems to be voting for Rocky and Bullwinkle.

    36. Re:"Not voting" by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      "Ron Paul did as much as most people posting about it here on /. have done."
      O really. We the people get to vote on this bill too? I did not know that because I thought the vote was on friday..

    37. Re:"Not voting" by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Dude - you're responding to someone who actually believes what the Ministry of Truth, er, I mean mainstream media tells them.

      You may as well be screaming at a wall.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    38. Re:"Not voting" by artor3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Very reasonable.

      But wait a sec... Aren't you the guy who in this same thread condemned Obama as a "lying piece of shit" and "George Bush wearing a mask" because he didn't perform the futile gesture of vetoing the NDAA after it had been passed by a veto-proof majority?

      To copy your two scenarios:

      (1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media and in the minds of millions of Americans for vetoing health care for wounded veterans (which was in the same bill), and it does nothing to stop the NDAA from passing anyhow.

      (2) Obama skips the veto since he knows he can't stop the passage, and does what he can through signing statements and executive orders to weaken it. (Which is what he did.)

      Why do you apply rational thinking towards the actions of people you like (Ron Paul) and not those you hate (Barack Obama)? Can you even really call it rational thinking, if you selectively apply it like that?

    39. Re:"Not voting" by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Stick it in your ass, you fucking traitorous dog. Everything I used to like about Ron Paul was in that stuff he said he didn't actually write, so got nothing good to say about the guy. His pie in the sky Libertarian hallucination is nothng but antisocial selfishness. In no way is he worse than Romney, but he doesn't deserve any votes from anyone with a heart and an eye on the long game.

      I'm voting for Obama for sure. He's done his best against the ridiculous Republicans. Not all perfect, but the best I've seen in my life. Don't buy into the Faux News lies.

    40. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People here don't understand their own government, abstention (not voting) is a NO vote. If more than half of the congressmen decided to NOT show up one day, they would not be able to pass ANYTHING. That being said, Ron Paul DID suspend his campaign when a yes vote was required in a feebleattempt to stop the 1.2 Trillion debt ceiling increase (would have required 2/3rds vote to override Obama's veto). I totally agree with cpu6502. Ron Paul has done more to raise awareness about the dangers of CISPA than any other politician on capital hill by making the opposition to it part of his campaign. I'm sure he will speak more on it tomorrow.

    41. Re:"Not voting" by jpstanle · · Score: 1

      If there's one thing the elderly NEVER forget to do, it's to vote.

    42. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For his defense, he was campaigning today. The vote supposed to happen tomorrow, but they moved it to today at the last minute.

    43. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul wasn't in a position to stop or delay the bill. Obama is.

      Obama has like 10 days to veto a bill but Ron Paul can't stop Congress from moving up a vote one day.

      Stop sucking Obama's dick already.

    44. Re:"Not voting" by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      It must be a strange sort of democracy where someone with half as many votes could still be considered a potential winner.

      For whatever reason, Romney is not just ahead, but miles and miles ahead in the democratic competition. Wouldn't it be some sort of travesty is someone that half as many voters voted for were to win?

    45. Re:"Not voting" by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here in the UK, we have a (slightly quaint) process for if an MP can't attend a vote. They contact someone who they know is going to vote the opposite way to them, and agree with them that they will both abstain (which has the same effect as if they had voted opposite ways and cancelled each other out). This is the trick usually used by the Prime Minister and senior Ministers (who are both members of the government and the legislature) when they need to go jetsetting around the world meeting foreign leaders and whatnot.

      Could Ron Paul not have made similar arrangements?

    46. Re:"Not voting" by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      You may notice that you've listed four parties there who have been "the top 2" at some time or another. They only became the "top 2" after getting a strong proportion of the vote.

      If, theoretically, Rocky Anderson's Justice Party were to do better than the Republican Party in the next election, it would become a de facto "top 2" party. It's only "throwing your vote away" if you lose, and you only lose if a lot of people don't vote for it.

      Not that I'm saying it would. I'd never even heard of them until this thread.

    47. Re:"Not voting" by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Since when is voting a team game? If you vote for the winning team you still lose if they don't represent your views.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    48. Re:"Not voting" by voidphoenix · · Score: 1

      +1

    49. Re:"Not voting" by MrNook · · Score: 1

      Yeah, he's almost 80 and still sharper in a debate than any other of the presidential candidates. In my eyes, Romney looks like a real dimwit next to Paul in a debate, and I'm pretty sure Obama would too. What would president Obama do without his trusty teleprompter?

    50. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So far I haven't met a rational Ron Paul supporter. They're all as crazy as the man himself.

    51. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the fuck is he campaigning at this point? ego?

    52. Re:"Not voting" by Kjella · · Score: 2

      So far 1334 delegates have been dealt out - 838 to Romney, only 88 initially to Ron Paul. Even if you believe that all of Santorum's and Gingrich's delegates would vote for Ron Paul all three of them together only add up to 496 delegates. There are currently 2286 - 1334 = 952 delegates left and Romney needs 1144 - 838 = 306 more to win or about 32%. Ron Paul has something like 15% support in the popular polls, but he's going to take 68% of the remaining delegates? On top of taking 100% of the freed delegates?

      (3) You don't quit a 26 mile marathon at mile 22. Paul's come all this way, and only has two more months to go.

      The problem with your analogy is that Romney is on mile 22, Ron Paul around mile 8 and you're still claiming he's going to win. Finishing for the sake of finishing is fine, but you only come across as one of Ron's wildly delusional fanboys.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    53. Re:"Not voting" by DiabolikOne · · Score: 2

      This is a pure straw man scenario you've painted. You're just looking for a way to malign Paul, but the truth is the President has more time available to him. Dr Paul can't ask Congress to wait a day on him. When Congress is in session, the president may, within a 10-day period, exercise a regular veto by sending the unsigned bill back to the chamber of Congress from which it originated along with a veto message stating his reasons for rejecting it. Didn't you ever see Schoolhouse Rock as a kid? Obviously not. Check youtube and learn something.

    54. Re:"Not voting" by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Hi Bill_mcgonigle.

      Would you like to tell me how Ron Paul Voted on NDAA? I hear that was a pretty important bill.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    55. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it may be the bottom of the 8th, the other team is up 15-0 and everybody else on my team has the flu but goddammit this game isn't over!

    56. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Easily Found:
      1. Did not vote to approve the XL pipeline. It would be nice to know if he felt he was a good private project or a misuse of taxpayer money
      2. Did not vote in 2012-2013 budget.
      3. Did not vote it payroll tax cut, which resulted in a great increase in deficiet
      4. Did not vote on the 9/11 health and compensation act
      5. Did not vote on the intelligence appropriation act. That is five. He may not be Santorum or the others who are never around, but clearly he often does have better things to do. That those things are not a vacation in Tahiti is really sad. I can forgive someone who missing work for a good vacation, but just because they don't feel like coming to work? Really. And this was just over two years.
    57. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      It would be more of a travesty if we allowed the election to be hijacked by the Romney Party when they are stealing votes (through backroom manipulation, or Diebold machines) and trying to block Paul supporters from registering to vote.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    58. Re:"Not voting" by Bigby · · Score: 1

      You think those 168 are principled? Or better yet, more principled than Ron? Or were they just voting N because their buddy voted N and their enemy voted Y.

    59. Re:"Not voting" by Bigby · · Score: 1

      A party can conduct voting however they want. If they want a dictatorship, they can have it. Don't call primaries a democracy.

    60. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      You are making the same dumbass mistake as the TV media. You didn't count Iowa or Nevada or Maine or any of the other caucus states. You're acting as if those states don't exist. The fact of the matter is that nearly-all those caucus states are going to Paul, so he should have hundreds of votes added to his tally.

      BUT NO instead you'd prefer to wipe those states off the map and pretend they don't exist.

      Oh and by the way, yes, I expect Romney to win the convention in August, and eventually be our next president. THEN I expect he will take us to war with Iran, reinstate the draft once he discovers he needs more soldiers, silence free speech online, in papers, and then start rounding-up people claiming "they are terrorists" just because they are anti-war. Thanks to the NDAA. (Note: If Obama wins, I expect the same thing to happen. Obama loves to bomb things and strike-thru the Bill of Rights.)

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    61. Re:"Not voting" by twoallbeefpatties · · Score: 1

      Could Ron Paul not have made similar arrangements?

      No, because that would've implied the two political parties coming to a gentlemanly agreement. This sort of thing has died over the past three decades over here.

      --
      Libertarians somehow believe that private businesses should be stronger than governments but weaker than individuals.
    62. Re:"Not voting" by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Whether the poster is biased in that manner or not I'm not actually going to address, but this particular example isn't really a valid counter in any case.

      Obama made a signing statement, meaning he was in a position where vetoing it was not any sort of logistical imposition and was something he, himself, likely had a great deal of scheduling discretion over. The two cases, at least at first glance, are almost nothing alike in regard to the practical situational disadvantages of engaging in the particular act in question in each one.

    63. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      You're voting for Obama? The guy who said it is "unpatriotic for Bush to add 4 trillion to the debt" and then does the same thing himself in just half the time.

      The guy who said "you can take it to the bank" that both wars will be over by Dec 31, 2009, but in fact both wars continued for another 2 years, and the Afghan war will continue indefinitely. MEANWHILE he went off and started NEW wars by bombing Yemen and Libya and murdering who knows how many 100s or thousands of innocent men, women, and children.

      The guy who signed a law that FORCES us to buy health insurance in direct contravention of out 9th and 10th amendment rights. Expanded the TSA to grope people at train depots, along interstate highways, at post offices, in malls, and just recently in buses. Signed the ACTA which censors free speech ont he net, added two sentences to the NDAA so he could arrest and imprison Americans without a right to trial (on the mere suspicion of being terrorists). Started regulating family farms such that children can no longer help milk the cows, bale the hay, et cetera.

      You're voting for this cat?
      Fool.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    64. Re:"Not voting" by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      With the way lies of omission and mudslinging work in US politics, they'd have no way to defend their "record" if they did something so sensible.

    65. Re:"Not voting" by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>(1) Obama vetos the bill. He gets eviscerated in the news media

      That's true, but there's also this little factoid: Obama didn't veto the NDAA, because he didn't want to veto it. He was the one who asked Congress to ADD the two sentences to arrest suspected terrorists (including americans) without giving them a right to trial. He wanted the law to pass as written.

      And then he included a signing statement which he knows, from previous SCOTUS cases, doesn't mean anything. It's null-and-void.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    66. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same reason people are claiming that the democrats voted no.

      He knew it would pass, so to avoid people realizing just what type of corporate filch he really is he abstained.

    67. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To add to this: Atleast when Obama was "out campaigning" or out vacationing(far less than bush did, FYI), he was still doing his job.

      If this is Ron Paul's idea of what he should do in a position of office, than....WHY are you voting for him again?

    68. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since a Democrat has never won a solidly red state...

      Since a Republican has never won a solidly blue state...

      It's always possible. And even if you don't win, if you get a significant amount of votes one election, next election, you just might take it all. How do you think the Whigs replaced the Federalists, and the Republicans replaced the Whigs?

    69. Re:"Not voting" by jmerlin · · Score: 2

      "Hey guys, it looks like we have 200+ people that will vote aye on this bill if we go ahead and take the vote tomorrow," said the sneaky silver tongued congressman from Your-Republican-State-Of-Choice at dinner with 199 of his closest evil buddies, "so let's move the vote up and get it out of the way before anyone can stop us!" The room erupted with cheers and yells "we're gonna be so rich!"

      When does this revolution start?

    70. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude - you're responding to someone who actually believes what the Ministry of Truth, er, I mean mainstream media tells them.

      Not the same AC, but...

      So the fact that I will not believe cpu6502's word at face value means I automatically believe whatever MSM shovels out? They're both giving me equal reason to believe their words. cpu6502 has, time and again, failed to actually back up their statement with something, anything, to prove them right. They claim someone named Rachel Maddow reported on it, but if that is true, why can't he provide a link to where she does?

      And don't give me that crap about "look it up yourself". You wouldn't tell your college professor to just "look it up yourself" if they started questioning where you came up with some outlandish claims in a research paper.

    71. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seeing as the man has no hope in hell of winning the election for President, what he did was a disservice. He was out coddling his pipe dream while idiotic legislation was passed back in the office.

    72. Re:"Not voting" by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Cooperation amongst opposition parties? How silly. Here in the US we we prefer our politicians to kill and maim.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    73. Re:"Not voting" by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Because the Republicans like it and he's a Democrat... Geeze, American politics are not that hard, people!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    74. Re:"Not voting" by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      A third party is never a wasted vote - it's a vote to change the status quo. What baffles me is how much people dislike the Dems and Reps, but continue to vote for them because they dislike the *other* party that much more. Really, it doesn't matter if a Dem or Rep wins the white house, we've seen through the last two presidencies that there is little appreciable difference. Romney vs Obama? Two suits with the same basic ideas on how the federal government should work. It *doesn't matter* which of those wins, so I don't mind voting a third party that actually represents some sort of change.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    75. Re:"Not voting" by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      Or worse, did they vote "N" because they didn't think this bill was sufficient and wanted additional measures added?

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    76. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you're missing the point. It wouldn't have mattered if nobody voted for CISPA. It still would have pa$$ed.

    77. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually a not present is the same as a nay.

    78. Re:"Not voting" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Would you like to tell me how Ron Paul Voted on NDAA? I hear that was a pretty important bill.

      Nay. What else would you expect?

      Here's him introducing the bill to repeal indefinite detentions.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    79. Re:"Not voting" by Binestar · · Score: 1

      Funny, your website contradicts the Source material available from http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

      Which do we believe. The official house roll call or your link?

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    80. Re:"Not voting" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Which do we believe. The official house roll call or your link?

      Your link is to a conference report vote. My link is to the vote on the bill. Follow the House Clerk's site to the actual vote on the bill - OpenCongress is very reputable, I'm sure they'll match up.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    81. Re:"Not voting" by Binestar · · Score: 1

      My link was the vote on changes that the Senate made, thus the last house vote on the final version of NDAA.

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    82. Re:"Not voting" by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      My link was the vote on changes that the Senate made, thus the last house vote on the final version of NDAA.

      Right, that's the conference committee report. The Senate did not remove the indefinite detention of American citizens because the administration threatened a veto if it did.

      If you want to make the argument that Ron Paul should have canceled all of his campaign events for the week, just before the NH primary, to sit in Washington awaiting the call for vote on the conference committee report, but he didn't, and therefore he supports indefinite detention, despite his previous vote against the bill and his bill to repeal those provisions, then fine.

      But few will support such an argument.

      If that's not the point you're trying to make, please be more specific.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    83. Re:"Not voting" by shiftless · · Score: 1

      No. You must not know about the wisdom and power of crowds. My message above reached thousands of viewers, influencing them (though it pales in comparison to the effect of Ron Paul's voice.) Yours did too, except it contained misinformation which supports people's false preconceptions, explaining why it got modded up.

      So we have an instance here where one person helped freedom, and the other worked against it. It's as simple as that.

      When are you going to start working for liberty, with positive words of support, instead of working against it with negativity and false views?

    84. Re:"Not voting" by shiftless · · Score: 1

      The fact of the matter is that nearly-all those caucus states are going to Paul, so he will have hundreds of votes added to his tally.

      FTFY

      Rachel Maddow -- "I think Ron Paul Just won Iowa!"

      He's winning the majority of delegates in many, many states right now. :]

      Also......when "Romney's" delegates are unbound after the first round fails to give him a majority vote.....he will quickly find that many of those delegates were never "his" to begin with, and are in fact Paul supporters in disguise.

      It's going to be a bloodbath in Tampa....words can't describe the level of lulz being about to be reaped by those "in the know" and watching this circus....

    85. Re:"Not voting" by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      [Obama is n]ot all perfect, but the best I've seen in my life.

      Wow. You must either be really, really young or blind. Or both.

      I posted here on /. in 2008 that I doubted Obama was as good as everyone thought he was, but that I hoped I would be proven wrong. I wasn't. To wit:
      * He promised to vote against telco immunity. After being elected President, but before taking office, he instead voted *FOR* telco immunity.
      * NDAA. It's been beaten to death in the threads above; I won't repeat the argument here.
      * He promised we'd be out of Iraq by 2009. We weren't.
      * He signed the reauthorization of the Patriot Act into law.
      *TSA went from annoying to outright evil (AIT scanners, "pat downs", expanding from airports to train stations, buses and even highways) on his watch.
      I won't even touch on Obamacare since one can at least make a plausible argument for that.

      From my vantage point, Obama has only ramped up the crap that Bush started. I never thought I'd say this, but I yearn for the "good old days" when Clinton (who I despised) was President.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    86. Re:"Not voting" by Binestar · · Score: 1

      I know he doesn't support it, but missing important votes like this isn't exactly being a great champion of liberty.

      I get upset at ANY politician who misses votes while campaigning. Fact is, the final vote for the final text of the bill wasn't important enough for him to vote on.

      Now, what brought this on was you saying he's always there for the important votes.

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2813853&cid=39815873

      --
      Do you Gentoo!?
    87. Re:"Not voting" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can't check it right now, but I'd like to thank you for doing what cpu6502 refused to do again and again and again, provide proof of Rachel Maddow reporting on Ron Paul winning all those states.

      Now obviously it is still possible that your link doesn't actually demonstrate that, but given the ease of which anyone can verify that your link has merit, for the time being I am trusting that it does. Again, thank you for doing what cpu6502 refused to do.

  11. How the hell... by Githaron · · Score: 1

    did people who are willing to allow that bill on the floor let alone vote yes on it even get into office?

    1. Re:How the hell... by leftover · · Score: 2

      They did what politicians do best -- lie without remorse.

      --
      Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    2. Re:How the hell... by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      I don't know which USA you are thinking about, but the one I live in has only one party in power, with two faces, and represents only corporations and the ruling elite. Since the media basically portrays the two faces of this one party as the choice people have to make during elections, the party stays in power. Since most people do not give two hoots about their civil rights, bills like CISPA wind up passing with the approval of the population.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    3. Re:How the hell... by berashith · · Score: 1

      I wish there was a way (besides voting them out) that the oath of office could be enforced. They all swear to protect the constitution, then undermine it on a whim. The treason penalty should be enacted after someone shows they are willing to skip their oath enough times.

    4. Re:How the hell... by Githaron · · Score: 1

      I did a quick Google search. The very document that they ignore in Article 2, Section 4 says:

      The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

      Unfortunately, it looks like Article 3, Section 3 gives congress the ability to declare treason. I somehow doubt, they are going to declare treason on themselves.

  12. Check the party breakdowns ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... and then tell me "there's no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    1. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering most democrats voted no...and if this makes it to the presidents desk...what will Obama do?

    2. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      Considering most democrats voted no...and if this makes it to the presidents desk...what will Obama do?

      Hopefully, veto it, like he said he would. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by silky1 · · Score: 1

      I'm no Obama fan but I would applaud him if he stood his ground here.

    4. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama has issued a veto threat.

    5. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      ... and then tell me "there's no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.

      There is no difference. Sometimes they just support/oppose different things. You're looking at a single bill and drawing a strange conclusion from it.

    6. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama promised to veto NDAA too. Later it was revealed the admin had actually insisted on the offensive provisions themselves.

    7. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no difference they just support different things....good logic, dude.

    8. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by NeverSuchBefore · · Score: 1

      It's obvious what I meant: neither of them give a shit about your freedom.

    9. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Considering most democrats voted no...and if this makes it to the presidents desk...what will Obama do?

      Hopefully, veto it, like he said he would. Mind you, I'm not holding my breath.

      Yeah, I'm not counting on this administration to take a stand, but I think (hope, and pray) the bill will die in the Senate.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    10. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      I'm pissed at Obama for not vetoing NDAA, but how about a cite for your assertion that his admin insisted on those provisions?

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    11. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama & democrats...not perfect, but better than republicans for standing up for your liberty.

    12. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Have you told Obama that?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    13. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by mianne · · Score: 1

      Given that the Rep of my district, Jim Cooper, was one of 42 Democrats who voted for it.. In my case, absolutely no difference at all between Dems and Reps.

      I'd send him a letter, but back in 2003 when he was joining the Bush II drum circle for a preemptive war in Iraq, I wrote to tell him I believed this was a colossally bad idea. I received a form letter in response which basically amounted to "STFU, we know what's best for you." I'd expect a similar response today. Since then, I've never voted for him, and wouldn't were he running unopposed. Tennessee is considered a solidly red state anyway, and Jim Cooper is one of the "Blue Dog Democrats" who are largely indistinguishable from the GOP. So, I will cast my ballot for 3rd party candidates in November as it's all but guaranteed that our electoral votes will go to Romney.

      However, I'd still vote third party even if I lived in Ohio or any of the other "battleground" states. After the extrajudicial assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, the NDAA, the expansion of the USA PATRIOT Act, and AIT/Grope-downs added to the TSA's repertoire under Obama--I find him mostly indistinguishable from GWB. Obama's far more articulate and much less smug, but just as dangerous to our civil liberties, and, likewise, virtually indistinguishable from Romney.

      --
      Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
    14. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Sez+Zero · · Score: 1

      Obama has issued a veto threat.

      Might as well spent a minute or two letting him know that you think he should indeed veto the bill.

    15. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 0

      but how about a cite for your assertion that his admin insisted on those provisions?

      sigh, undoing moderation since it looks like not enough people are aware of this.

      I mean, of course it wasn't covered in the corporate news media, but all the independent media couldn't stop talking about it a few months ago (hence the GP probably assumed everybody here knew).

      If you're going to track just one independent writer, make it Glen Greenwald. Then maybe add in the Democracy Now podcast, and at least see what Lew Rockwell, RT, Infowars (but skip any by Alex Jones!) and Al Jazeera are writing about, etc. None of them are The Truth, but neither is the NYT/WP/LAT syndicate.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    16. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no difference. The bill's original co-sponsor is Henry Cuellar (D-TX).

    17. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Mitreya · · Score: 1

      Obama has issued a veto threat.

      So what? Based on experience, the veto threat would probably be satisfied by an explicit exception disallowing the monitoring of the president or any of his aides. The article may say he cares about people's rights, but available data of his actions up-to-today makes it very unlikely.

    18. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by psiclops · · Score: 1

      yeah, but you might as well choose how you're gonna get fucked

      --
      i spent five minutes thinking and all i got was this crappy sig
    19. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by swillden · · Score: 1

      ... and then tell me "there's no difference" between Democrats and Republicans.

      Of course there's a difference: They want to take away different freedoms, and they want to spend huge amounts of tax dollars on different pet projects. The people who say there's no difference are just addressing the fact that both parties are authoritarian, big-government, tax-and-spend parties (or maybe borrow-and-spend, but that just defers the taxes). They're not wrong, and neither are you. There are differences, just no differences that matter.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Would you vote for him, over Romney, if he did so?

      If so, write a very nice letter to him to that effect. And hopefully like minded people could do the same. Nothing focuses the mind of a democratically elected politician than the thought of pleasing swing voters in an election year.

      If the answer is "no, I'll never vote for him on his current policy platform", then unfortunately it matters little whether you would "applaud him" or not. As is first-past-the-post, unfortunately.

    21. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Do you keep those form letters? When I get one from my MP, I leave it out on my coffee table. When people come around, they often notice the House of Commons letterhead and ask what it is. I show them that it's an example of him acting against the interests of his constituents and not replying to any of the points I made. Does it make a difference? I have no idea, but if it convinces half a dozen people vote against him then that's noticeable in an election where the difference between the winning candidate and the second place was only about 800 votes...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Anguirel · · Score: 1

      Obama has issued a veto threat.

      Might as well spent a minute or two letting him know that you think he should indeed veto the bill.

      Or at least go sign the petition.

      --
      ~Anguirel (lit. Living Star-Iron)
      QA: The art of telling someone that their baby is ugly without getting punched.
    23. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      How about "over my dead body?"

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    24. Re:Check the party breakdowns ... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      What about FISA? When Obama said he wouldn't vote for it as long as telecom immunity was in it, then voted for it, he lost my vote.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  13. Democracy at its best by Spiked_Three · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whine all you want. How many sent a message to your representatives on this issue? How many will lounge at home come next election? Taking advantage of lethargy is what democracy is all about. Sit around and whine about it and do nothing .... perfect.

    --
    slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    1. Re:Democracy at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I did, called, and used the contact forms on the site. NC 9th district, she is a republican. She still voted for it. But she is retiring after this election so she didn't care that I was not going to vote for her or the next republic nominated for the 9th.

    2. Re:Democracy at its best by armanox · · Score: 1

      Well, mine voted no (Sarbanes).

      --
      I'm starting to think GNU is the problem with "GNU/Linux" these days.
    3. Re:Democracy at its best by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 1

      I'm E-mailing my congressman now (Hastings). I'll E-mail my Senators too, for good measure.

      And come election time, I am voting for absolutely no one that currently holds a federal political position. We need to purge the system.

    4. Re:Democracy at its best by rodarson2k · · Score: 1

      Voting's great, but there has to be someone on the ticket that's worth voting for.
      Strangely, the tactical republican play to "fuck obama by making him come out against cybersecurity" will wind up winning him my vote. Assuming he doesn't just sign the bill in order to win the swing votes of a million grandmas who have no idea what cyberspace is.

    5. Re:Democracy at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly this leads to the lethargy mentioned above... I agree, with this sentiment, to an extent... but since I only expend a few calories in each election I vote in, I would find it obstinate to not at least vote for whomever you think sucks the least... seriously... are you black living in florida in 2000? No? Then you can vote for little to no cost to you. You say your boss won't pay you? Register for permanent absentee so you can vote by mail, and slowly fill in your ballot over a period of weeks... really? You can't be bothered to participate on such a small and perhaps meaningless level 'just in case' you (and the millions of americans that share your attitude) could alter the course of an election enough to get someone who sucks slightly less?

    6. Re:Democracy at its best by Scarred+Intellect · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rough draft. Edited to protect MY privacy:

      In the name of security we have the TSA, I am sure you are familiar with their current situation. If not, Google. And allow me a moment to give you a brief overview: strip-searching old women, patting down an 4 year old girl, targeting female passengers with full-body scans, smuggling...all in the name of fighting terrorism while at the same time providing the largest terrorist threat: insecure security checkpoints.

      TSA needs to be shut down, they accomplish nothing but necessitating a ridiculously large crowd that is easy for a bomber to target. Since these crowds don't get bombed, there is no significant terrorist threat, and the TSA is uselss. But I digress.

      In the name of security we now have the CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act). The goal again being a more secure internet. What we don't need is a more secure internet, the internet is secure enough for those who care enough (encryption via PGP, VPN's, E-mail anonymizers, etc.). What we do need is privacy. This bill threatens privacy too much; it is also too similar in scope to SOPA. I sent you a letter about SOPA, and though it wasn't in your consideration, you said you would keep these views in mind "should legislation regarding internet regulation come before the House of Representatives" (Letter to REDACTED, Jan 19, 2012). You also state "It is imperative that we recognize the need to balance the freedom promised by the Internet with the responsibility to protect the rights of consumers and businesses."

      You have failed.

      The 4th Amendment to our Constitution, which I am sure you swore an oath to uphold, states that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." CISPA is in direct conflict with our Constitutional rights.

      There are better ways that the goals of CISPA can be achieved, and they do not involve disclosure of private data to determine online threats. If you are unaware of these better ways, then you have no reason to be voting on such issues until you become better informed.

      One of the goals of CISPA is to assist in reporting/detecting cybersecurity. That is all well and good, and can be done with ONLY IP Addresses and does not need to contain personal information of any sort.

      In the name of security we have allowed ourselves to be deluded into abandoning our rights and allowing the government to strip us of our rights and convenience so that we can be safer. Catchall phrases such as "to protect against terrorism," "for the children," and "for national security" have been used all too much to justify blatant abuses of the government's power.

      In the name of security our country has maintained the USA PATRIOT act, an act originally intended to be short-lived.

      In the name of security we have become absurdly inconvenienced when traveling, had our privacy dissolved, and many basic rights washed away. This needs to end.

      In the name of security we have allowed the terrorists to win: we have a government consistently and continually crushing our rights and eroding our freedoms, and this once-great nation is now the laughing stock of the free world because we are a disturbingly pitiful former shadow of ourselves.

      As a US Marine Corps infantry machinegunner, I am ashamed of our government.

    7. Re:Democracy at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Get off your butts and write them now house.gov, or better yet write your Senator and see if you can stop it before it hits Obama's desk.

    8. Re:Democracy at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me. I told a staunch conservative about how my father supported him for decades (without ever having lived in his state) and my voting for him and asked him what he would do to counter the cowardly actions of all 6 of our state's Reps (bipartisan in the south, whodathunkit?) in unanimously approving the bill.

      Time to move to Montana, anyone know where I can get a good deal on a herd of dental floss?

    9. Re:Democracy at its best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Y'know, come election time, I seriously wish that 4chan or something similar would band together and all the americans on ther get up and vote on the same thing... some third party. If everyone follows through, there's a very distinct chance that they could single-handedly (in a manner of speaking) decide the election.

    10. Re:Democracy at its best by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately Ruppersberger voted for it, maybe they decided to split the vote?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    11. Re:Democracy at its best by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Very well put, hopefully it isn't filed in the circular file without being read, that is all that happens with my correspondence. I guess being registered independent means that I can be ignored.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  14. roll call by bs0d3 · · Score: 1
  15. Vote breakdown ... but amendments? by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

    Here's how each representative voted (or not):

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192

    But does anyone know where to find the details about what each of the various amendments was? ('amendment 10' isn't really all that useful)

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  16. This is constitutional. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the ISPs stealing your information and giving it to the government, not the government stealing it. That makes it constitutional.

    1. Re:This is constitutional. by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      Not true. The government cannot circumvent the 4th Amendment by coercing a third party to do their dirty work for them ... at least until CISPA becomes law.

  17. Lol repuglicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But...but...Republicans are for the rule of law and small government!! That's why they were 90% of the Yeas.

    What a joke...

    1. Re:Lol repuglicans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant Libertarian...

  18. Called congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I called my reps to tell them to vote no....did anyone else? Sadly they ignored me again...

  19. Yes, I will tell you that by Scareduck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Because here is how modern American politics work: the state gets expanded at every possible opportunity. This is what the Democrats want (so long as they can get more entitlements) and what the Republicans want (so long as they can get free rein to send the military into new wars). The only question is, what gets expanded?

    As I have said elsewhere, it's pretty obvious that the government plans on listening to everything going on on the Internet. This is just legal formalism.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jesus H. Christ. Here is a very clear-cut case, having practically nothing to do with either entitlements or war, in which a strong majority of Democrats voted against expanding the power of the state, and a strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Just out of curiosity, is there anything that could convince you that there's a meaningful difference between the parties?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Brian+Feldman · · Score: 1

      It's an illusion. If they all voted for it, that illusion would be more shabby. There is no difference between the parties.

      --
      Brian Fundakowski Feldman
    3. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Princeofcups · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jesus H. Christ. Here is a very clear-cut case, having practically nothing to do with either entitlements or war, in which a strong majority of Democrats voted against expanding the power of the state, and a strong majority of Republicans voted for it. Just out of curiosity, is there anything that could convince you that there's a meaningful difference between the parties?

      My Sig speaks for itself.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    4. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then fucking do something about it.

    5. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I block sigs because they are usually retarded.

    6. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Sig speaks for itself.

       
      Be nice if I could read it but I'm not logged in at the moment.

    7. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, in answer to GP's question... no. Absolutely anything the Dems or Reps do is proof that they're all part of the conspiracy.

      Any time you catch yourself saying or thinking this - anything that contradicts me is proof I'm right - close the tab and walk away. It means you've fallen into a positive-feedback trap of seeing only what you want to see and as a result are now completely full of shit regarding the topic.

    8. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where do you read someones sig. A sig means nothing if you can't read it, just post what you want to say.

    9. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post proves that he's not full of shit and he's not in a positive feedback loop!

    10. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no conspiracy, it's just pure greed in action. Company, i.e. the extremely wealthy people, are giving money to both sides of the same coin. They are giving them money to curry favor for when they want laws implemented, or ignored, in favor of the companies these extremely wealthy people control.

      People getting into politics are power crazy, they'll say and do anything to get more power. This is just self-interest, and basically comes down to greed. The voters have been conditioned into left/right voting, whereas the reality in the USA is right/further-right. The voting has become a sports entertainment for the masses. Will "your" side/team win? Once voting is over, the same people are controlling the same set of politicians doing the same thing. Buying the country to line their pockets even further.

    11. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      As an Australian with no political affiliation for any US party, I would say Republicans and Democrats vote to violate your rights sometimes in different ways. I personally find with our parties here that I do not really find either of the ways the LNP and Labor parties violate our rights to be preferable to the other.

    12. Re:Yes, I will tell you that by BoberFett · · Score: 2

      Republicans were against SOPA while Democrats backed it.

      So now the roles are reversed and you want to use that as evidence that there's a difference?

  20. No by Scareduck · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This is a result of liberal insistence on a government that can give you everything you want while failing to recognize that such a government can take it all away, too.

    --

    Dog is my co-pilot.

    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you, you mindless knee-jerk fascist piece of shit.

    2. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pot? Kettle here. You're black.

    3. Re:No by sjames · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's much better to vote for a government that gives us nothing but can still take everything we have.

    4. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go look at the vote split: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml

      Then come back and admit you're an idiot.

    5. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up with your stupid facts. This is a result of liberalism! Liberalism, I say!

    6. Re:No by _xeno_ · · Score: 2

      Obama also promised to:

      Increase the capital gains and dividends taxes for higher-income taxpayers, expand the child and dependent care credit, create a foreclosure prevention fund for homeowners, provide the option for a pre-filled-out tax form, require automatic enrollment in 401(k) plans, require automatic enrollment in IRA plans, end income tax for seniors making less than $50,000, end no-bid contracts above $25,000, repeal the Bush tax cuts for higher incomes, phase out exemptions and deductions for higher earners, sign the Employee Free Choice Act, making it easier for workers to unionize, forbid companies in bankruptcy from giving executives bonuses, allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court, allow imported prescription drugs, prevent drug companies from blocking generic drugs, allow Medicare to negotiate for cheaper drug prices, appoint federal-level coordinator to oversee all federal autism efforts, double federal funding for cancer research, direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to conduct a comprehensive study of federal cancer initiatives, provide the CDC $50 million in new funding to determine the most effective approaches for cancer patient care, fully fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), create a National Commission on People with Disabilities, Employment, and Social Security, change federal rules so small businesses owned by people with disabilities can get preferential treatment for federal contracts, reduce the threshhold for the Family and Medical Leave Act from companies with 50 employees to companies with 25 employees, provide a $1.5 billion fund to help states launch programs for paid family and medical leave, require employers to provide seven paid sick days per year, expand the Family Medical Leave Act to include leave for domestic violence or sexual assault, form international group to help Iraq refugees, work with Russia to move nuclear weapons off hair-trigger alert, close the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center, develop an alternative to President Bush's Military Commissions Act on handling detainees, secure ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), seek to negotiate a political agreement on Cyprus, reinstate special envoy for the Americas, double the Peace Corps, create a public "Contracts and Influence" database, allow five days of public comment before signing bills, enforce tougher rules against revolving door for lobbyists and former officials, double funding for afterschool programs, expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity, urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws, allow bankruptcy judges to modify terms of a home mortgage, increase the minimum wage to $9.50 an hour, restore Superfund program so that polluters pay for clean-ups, re-establish the National Aeronautics and Space Council, support human mission to moon by 2020, pay for the national service plan without increasing the deficit, reduce the number of middle managers in the federal workforce, strengthen the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, limit term of director of national intelligence, give annual "State of the World" address, reduce earmarks to 1994 levels, enact windfall profits tax for oil companies, create cap and trade system with interim goals to reduce global warming, use revenue from cap and trade to support clean energy and environmental restoration, require plug-in fleet at the White House, require more flex-fuel cars for the federal government, mandate flexible fuel vehicles by 2012, provide an annual report on "state of our energy future," allow penalty-free hardship withdrawals from retirement accounts in 2008 and 2009, recognize the Armenian genocide, ensure no family making less than $250,000 will see "any form of tax increase," negotiate health care reform in public sessions televised on C-SPAN, create a public option health plan for a new National Health Insurance Exchange, and introduce a comprehensive immigration bill in the first year.

      (From PolitiFact.)

      So you'll understand if I don't take Obama at his word.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    7. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop that republican vs democrat bullshit.

      Check whether your representative voted on it, if he did complain, if he voted against, thank him/her. Contact your senators and let them know your opinion.

      Then every 2 years, based on how they represented you, either vote for them or vote for someone else. If you have Android phone, there's a nice app by Sunlight Foundation called Congress which allows you to keep track of your representatives and bills.

    8. Re:No by Spiked_Three · · Score: 1

      Its obvious you copied pasted that from some politically balanced site, like FOX news.

      As an exercise, please re-list, indicating where the president can unilaterally act and did not, in passing said promises.

      Otherwise its all political BS like every president makes every election. Like Newt magically making gas cost $2 a gallon, like that's going to happen because a presidential candidate promises it. Were you born yesterday?

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
    9. Re:No by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Its obvious you copied pasted that from some politically balanced site, like FOX news.

      Man, if only I had linked my source in my post. Oh, wait, I did! Here it is again: the PolitiFact Obameter.

      And I suppose PolitiFact may be biased in some way, but as I understand it they're generally accused of having a liberal bias. Which is why I chose to use their list.

      As an exercise, please re-list, indicating where the president can unilaterally act and did not, in passing said promises.

      No. It's all crap that Obama promised, and you're right, a ton of it is crap that he simply has no way to actually do. Which is why he should have never promised it in the first place - especially because, as a Constitutional scholar, he had to have known some of promises were blatantly unconstitutional - but he did.

      Not to mention that Obama specifically asked people to hold him accountable in that fashion. So, there you go, there's the list that Obama himself asked people to keep.

      And again, because you apparently can't read links: The PolitiFact Obameter

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    10. Re:No by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      The site you copied this stuff from has 4 pages of promises not kept and 9 pages of kept promises.

      You are NOT providing a balanced picture.

    11. Re:No by Spiked_Three · · Score: 1

      But nice to see you dance around the comparison to the reppellicans. Practice all the dancing you can, you are going to need if your man wins. The bar for dirty politics has been raised quite a bit by the current vocal minority, don't cry (too hard) when it comes back at ya.

      --
      slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
  21. Throw all the bastards out by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

    All of them.  Throw them all out.

    1. Re:Throw all the bastards out by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      All of them. Throw them all out.

      Not my guys! They all voted NO. Guess we'll see what happens tomorrow in Ye Olde Senate.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    2. Re:Throw all the bastards out by rastoboy29 · · Score: 1

      Fair point.

  22. Well all I can say is I'm happy to live in Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Holy moly, the US is becoming a cesspit hour by hour.

  23. Calm down, everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is no big deal. We didn't need the fourth amendment anyway. Since they've finally got the chutzpah to stand up to their constituents, they should get rid of that pesky freedom of speech next. Oh, and habeus corpus. I always hated that one. Then maybe they'll finally get around to doing something about ex post facto and double jeopardy.

  24. One word... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fascist.

  25. That's it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm going to bed. Wake me when this mess is sorted.

  26. Well.... by Dripdry · · Score: 5, Insightful

    my long-time girlfriend and I have been debating whether to leave the country. I guess the strategy is to keep our heads down as long as possible, ignore using the internet, learn another language or two, save up as much as we can, and get the fuck out of this country.

    For some reason I was really starting to think I could settle down in this country, have a family, and be productive.

    --
    -
    1. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't wait. America is a shithole. Come to Canada and help us fight our American-inspired government, please.

    2. Re:Well.... by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 2

      my long-time girlfriend and I have been debating whether to leave the country. I guess the strategy is to keep our heads down as long as possible, ignore using the internet, learn another language or two, save up as much as we can, and get the fuck out of this country.

      And where were you considering going to?
      Be sure to check deeply into their immigration laws, and see if they will even consider you.

    3. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Awesome way to deal with problems and hardships, just run the fuck away.

    4. Re:Well.... by mapuche · · Score: 2

      Almost any country in the world feels the great influence and political pressure of the United States, and tend to change and obey some laws accordingly as America requires. I think you still live in a reasonable free country compared to many others in the same continent. Living in your own country lets you have the option to vote and voice your opinion in any way you can find, while leaving it will make your voice nothing than a noise in the wind.

    5. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is amusing (sad) that Americans still assume that we're wanted elsewhere in the world.

    6. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      my long-time girlfriend and I have been debating whether to leave the country. I guess the strategy is to keep our heads down as long as possible, ignore using the internet, learn another language or two, save up as much as we can, and get the fuck out of this country.

      For some reason I was really starting to think I could settle down in this country, have a family, and be productive.

      Doesn't matter. Being a US Citizen, you are subject to all the rules/laws and regulations of the good 'ol US of A. Don't think for a minute that the US gov't wouldn't hesitate to file an extradition request for you if they felt you violated a law of the US.

    7. Re:Well.... by Isarian · · Score: 1

      My girlfriend and I have been doing the same thing. But like others have said, be sure to check deeply into immigration laws. For example, my country of choice, Finland, has a VERY difficult path to immigration.

    8. Re:Well.... by Dripdry · · Score: 2

      That's a good point. Probably shouldn't be jumping the gun here, but stuff like this keeps coming up. Heck, our city is installing speed cameras soon after developing this "righteous shield" bullhockey, oo whatever it's called (city-wide surveillance that allows private citizens to plug in their own feed to monitor others) It's so creepy and invasive, and while I'm normally pretty care-free, if CISPA passes I can hardly even be myself in my own home going on the internet. It's not enough that I have to keep looking straight ahead and think nice thoughts when the police walk/drive by around here for fear of getting on the wrong side of Officer Chip-On-His-Shoulder, getting handcuffed for "resisting arrest", then thrown in jail which would destroy my livelihood/nusiness because the whole thing shows up on my professional record... It's getting to be a bit much.
      Also, voicing one's opinion here only works if you've got a ton of money to wag around. I'd rather put that money toward a family or a decent lifestyle than to try desperately funding my personal views into politics.
      Eh, just my 2 cents. I guess we'll see how this all pans out.

      Oh, and to the replier who mentioned running away: Yes, it *is* running away. I've been taught in martial arts that running away, avoiding the conflict where you or someone you love is likely to get hurt, is the best thing to do. The government seems to keep veering toward The People on a crash course for an unpleasant set of circumstances, and i would rather leave and avoid even the potential that I get caught up in it rather than sit around thinking I can change something.
      Maybe I just don't feel a lot of patriotism anymore. There's never really been a reason to in my lifetime (born in '79). It's all been Reagan and all that B.S. So it IS MY RIGHT to decide that I want to leave. I have that freedom and am willing to exercise it.
      I guess we'll see how it pans out. I don't want to leave, but it feels as though I'm damn near forced to.

      --
      -
    9. Re:Well.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you have money, fame or, failing both, education (in something useful) you can get mostly anywhere.

    10. Re:Well.... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      A.C. pot calling the kettle black, huh?

      --
      -
    11. Re:Well.... by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      We haven't violated the law in any way (well, read that book "3 felonies a day"), I just think that the powers that be are looking for a fight with EVERYONE to justify their own bloated existence/sense of statism/power trip/greed. I'm a guy who is a little off the beaten path in terms of hobbies, views, etc. and I'm getting worried that these could in any way be perceived as no longer be OK if the government can watch everything I do via my transactions and personal information.

      It's only the land of the free for those who fall in line, unless we do something about it very quickly. With the death of our diversity comes the death of America's greatest asset. This is perhaps the most hilarious, sobbingly ironic development of our nation's time.

      --
      -
  27. Two words.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man the US has become like Fringe's last episode, minus the observers. A brave new world.
    No rights anymore. You're just a number to be used and consumed at the whim of the government and corporations.
    Enjoy your land of the free, home of the brave (it sounds so last century and old style).

  28. anybody know a decent vpn? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    time to start protecting myelf

  29. So now what? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    When does this go into effect?

    --
    -
    1. Re:So now what? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 3, Informative

      When does this go into effect?

      After it is passed by the Senate, and then after the President signs it. What classes do you miss in elementary school?

    2. Re:So now what? by WraithCube · · Score: 1

      Unless I missed something it still has to be voted on in the senate and make it past Obama's threatened veto

    3. Re:So now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The President had no trouble putting his signature on the renewal of the Patriot Act. What makes you think this is going to be any different?

    4. Re:So now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think he asked when, not how. As in, does anyone know what date it can come into effect.

      What grammar classes did you miss in elementary school?

    5. Re:So now what? by iphinome · · Score: 1

      This time he's very publicly threatened to veto.

    6. Re:So now what? by moeinvt · · Score: 1

      "This time he's very publicly threatened to veto."

      Ah yes, just like he did with NDAA.

      Same playbook this time. He'll get a couple of meaningless clauses added, use a "signing statement" to say that he won't abuse this, and then claim it's a victory for the American people.

    7. Re:So now what? by iphinome · · Score: 1

      No doubt if he had vetoed it you'd be going off on how he vetoed healthcare for veterans or was leaving us open to the terrorists. Hater's gotta hate.

    8. Re:So now what? by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      I asked "when". As in what is the date it goes into effect. Or are you just looking for a fight?

      Jeez.

      --
      -
    9. Re:So now what? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      The exact date cannot be known. Sometime "after" it passes the Senate, and then "after" it is signed by the President.
      "If" on both counts. It is not law yet.

    10. Re:So now what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh, depends on the elementary school. I knew very little about the process of laws getting passed until U.S. History as a High School Junior. I do not recall it being covered much if at all in previous social studies classes.

  30. Lyle Myhur said it best by Tanman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "When they took the 4th Amendment, I was quiet because I didn't deal drugs. When they took the 6th Amendment, I was quiet because I am innocent. When they took the 2nd Amendment, I was quiet because I don't own a gun. Now they have taken the 1st Amendment, and I can only be quiet."

        -- Lyle Myhur

    1. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by belthize · · Score: 1

      From the linked article:

      Pelosi, at a press briefing last Thursday, endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats the day before to ratify an amendment to the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

      If certain people hadn't stupidly decided that corporations were people with respect to political contributions and speech there wouldn't be a perception of need for such an amendment. I'll be down with corporations being treated as people with respect to speech about 4 microseconds after they're considered people with respect to felonies.

    2. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals.

      Nice of you to leave that part out.

    3. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think you are joking, but Pelosi (house minority leader) just propsed amending the constitution to repeal the first amendment. She wants to ammend the constitution to allow Congress to regulate political speech.
      http://news.investors.com/article/608865/201204231915/pelosi-says-supreme-court-wrong-on-citizens-united-.htm

      Citizens United was the infamous decision which essentially decided that since Corporations Are People, they can spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. I'm beginning to think that the court believes corporations are more "People" than actual human persons are.

    4. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      This doesn't repeal the first amendment. It negates the horrible Supreme Court decision on the 14th amendment that gave corporations full ability to throw their money into the political process.

      "Pelosi, at a press briefing last Thursday, endorsed a movement announced by other congressional Democrats the day before to ratify an amendment to the Constitution to allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged in by corporations as opposed to individuals."

      Unfortunately you got your quote from one of the most radical editorial sources in the US, the IBD.

    5. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realized until Citizens United was overturned it was illegal, OUTRIGHT ILLEGAL, for a private citizen to produce and place an ad for a political opinion on TV within 90 days of an election. The law they overturned now allows private citizens to now express their opinions on TV.

      I know liberals don't like the freedom of speech, but this has gotten ridiculous. They are now outright attacking the first amendment. I guess the rest of the country will have to fight them tooth and nail to keep the first amendment like we did over the last couple years over the second one.

      Vote censtorship -> Vote DNC!

    6. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were we talking about that outcome of the case? Do you realize that supreme court cases aren't all-or-nothing? That part of the law could have been overturned without corporations becoming super people? That the DNC seems to be opposing super-people-corporations, but not the other part of the ruling? That the person you responded to seems to be opposing super-people-corporations, but not the other part of the ruling?

      Or are you intentionally trying to mischaracterize their positions because you don't have anything useful to counter with?

    7. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, before Citizens United it was illegal for me to put on a political ad that I pay for myself 90 days before an election, no debate there, pure fact.
      SC struck down the part that made it illegal because the first amendment, no debate there, pure fact.
      Pelosi wants to repeal part of first amendment so that Congress can "regulate political speech" ware her specific words, no debate there, pure fact.

      So the only conclusion I can make is Pelosi doesn't think I should have the right to speak my own political opinions unless she approves them first.
      DNC = censorship pure and simple. You can cry and moan all you want because I am pointing out uncomfortable facts, but liberals usually agree with censorship as long as they are the ones deciding what is allowed and what is not. That is the opinion you just told me. People you don't agree with should not be able to express their voice on the issues. You specifically support censorship.

    8. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just ignored my post. Completely. What the hell is wrong with you?

      Again, Pelosi's proposal would not affect that part of the ruling. What about that do you not understand? The extraneous rhetorical verbosity of your post can't make up for the fact that it's a load of shit.

    9. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing it didn't occur to you that the McCain Feingold CFR act was actually unconstitutional. I bet that thought never entered your mind and you never read the ruling on it. You are just going around calling people names on a topic you have shown yourself to be completely ignorant about. Before the ruling it was illegal for citizens to express opinions in many cases, but you don't care if the first amendment was trampled on because of "big bad corporation". Just screw everyone else as long as we get to "punish the corporations".

    10. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just did it again. Some people want an amendment to correct one of the implications of that ruling. Absolutely zero people have proposed amending that Act into the constitution, with everything that comes with it. I understand that straw men are a lot easier to knock down, but come on.

    11. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by geekgirlandrea · · Score: 1

      Please do kindly explain how you can censor a corporation without censoring some specific person associated with said corporation? Have you merely never thought about it for the two seconds it takes to notice that before regurgitating this tripe, or do you simply not care about censoring people as long as they're evil corporate-type people rather than saintly progressives who plainly can do no wrong?

    12. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by belthize · · Score: 1

      I suspect you don't really understand the purpose of a corporation. By definition: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/corporation they're set up to be distinct.
      How that is achieved varies from government to government but the basic principle is the same.

      First off censoring a corporation doesn't censor an individual because the individual is still perfectly free to say whatever it was the corporation was.

      You seem more interested in simply taking left vs right pot shots including rather poor assumption about my view of corporations than truly grasping the issue. This is more complex than a simple of freedom of speech argument. For centuries we created a series of laws which hinged around the idea that corporations were distinct in terms of liability, financially and politically from their members. There are a lot of good reasons for this, most of which protect the corporation so they can get on with their job.

      The problem here is individuals leveraging those protections with the sole purpose of using those protections, they're not a production entity they're simply an entity hiding behind a loophole. The supreme court is free to strike down all part or none of a law. They could have reached a consensus that didn't abridge any individual freedom of speech while still retaining the long held standard that corporations were not people. Now there's a can of worms and there will be a steady stream of cases challenging that interpretation in other arenas (liability for instance).

    13. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Bigby · · Score: 1

      I would really like to know how one plans to separate the two? Is a corporation not run by individuals? Could a corporation not pay their CEO $10b and that CEO give it right to a political campaign? Can they not do this with several employees?

      If you want to separate Business from State, you have to get FAR more creative. You need to get rid of elected representatives and have random representation using computers and statistics. Then there is no one to lobby.

    14. Re:Lyle Myhur said it best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They certainly haven't taken MY 2nd amendment, which exists in more than words on parchment. I don't want to see them try but...

  31. Citizens need to learn to protect themselves by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    from their governments. Everywhere. They are not your friend.

    Strong crypto, anonymizing proxies, onion routing....

    It's not just for users in China and Iran anymore.

  32. Time to find a foreign VPS for my openvpn server by bleh-of-the-huns · · Score: 2

    I currently have a VPS that I use as a VPN server for my mobile devices and laptop when I am on travel and redirect all of my traffic through. I do this mainly to keep Verizon and ATT (specifically ATT when I tether) grubby little mitts of my data.

    I think it is time to switch to a foreign VPS provider, somewhere in the EU or Asia, and reroute ALL of my traffic through there. My only issue is currently my FIOS speeds far exceed my throughput at my current VPS..

    --
    I came, I conquered, I coredumped
  33. Goodby USA by phiro.kiwi · · Score: 2

    Just started the procedure to move my last two servers off US soil. No more dollars for you my friend!

    1. Re:Goodby USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The servers are the easy part. I have already implemented procedures to move myself offshore.

  34. I need to send your email address! by cvtan · · Score: 1

    Isn't this just a good excuse to send people's email addresses off to SPAM central? For a small security fee of course.

    --
    Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
  35. Senate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This has to go through the senate before it is a law bros. Considering that very few democrats voted for it, it may see more opposition there.

  36. Come to Massachusetts! by Nin10doman · · Score: 1

    All of the Massachusetts representatives voted "No." Join us! We're sane!

    1. Re:Come to Massachusetts! by Burz · · Score: 1

      If the bill gets signed into law, it won't matter in which state you live.

    2. Re:Come to Massachusetts! by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      All of the Massachusetts representatives voted "No."

      Join us! We're sane!

      I know, I feel guilty celebrating when the damn thing actually passed...

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
  37. Republican Driven Legislation by tyrione · · Score: 5, Insightful

    All you GOP hack lovers who espouse about their love of Privacy, Liberty, Guns, blah, blah, blah take a look at the count:

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml

    AYES: GOP 206, DEM 42
    NOES: GOP 28, DEM 140
    NOT VOTING: GOP 8, DEM 7

    Don't tell me the GOP is for your privacy. Stew in your own bull****.

    1. Re:Republican Driven Legislation by Howitzer86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The Democrats will screw you in the name of ending piracy, safety, global-warming, and taxes. The Republicans will screw you in the name of security, starting wars, policing pornography, and enforcing morality. The one guy you thought was awesome, the one you you thought was different? Well turns out he's a coward.

      Does voting even matter at this point?

    2. Re:Republican Driven Legislation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might as well try to convince religious people why their religion is bogus: there's just no point to it, they would never accept any facts or proof that conflict with their world-view.

    3. Re:Republican Driven Legislation by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2

      Fortunately for the Republicans, enough Dems went along with the stupidity that the bill passed. If those 42 Dems hadn't voted against their constituents' interests, the final vote would've been 206 GOP ayes versus 210 mostly-Dem noes.

      Why can't Congress ever work together on something I want?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    4. Re:Republican Driven Legislation by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Why can't Congress ever work together on something I want?

      You got a bagful of money for bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    5. Re:Republican Driven Legislation by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Why can't Congress ever work together on something I want?

      I believe the votes for Congress to leave session are usually bi-partisan.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  38. Bye bye... by interval1066 · · Score: 1

    ...Ms American Pie.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  39. Here comes the Snowball Effect by Jetra · · Score: 0

    Well, just need to pass SOPA/PIPA and we can say that we'll be bend over being f**ked by our own government.

    You laughed when they took down Mediashare (I apologize if I got it wrong, please correct me)

    You laughed when they took down that obscure website

    How long will it be before you get off the computer, grab a pitchfork and some torches, and throw out our government? How much nibbling before you notice a chunk of our freedom is missing? I won't stand for this, and will elect Ron Paul for President.

    1. Re:Here comes the Snowball Effect by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      I'll do it right after you go first, Mr. Armchair General.

    2. Re:Here comes the Snowball Effect by Jetra · · Score: 0

      I deny the position. I am a horrible leader.

    3. Re:Here comes the Snowball Effect by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      I deny the position. I am a horrible leader.

      Well it's like Kevin Arnold said, some men are born great, some men pursue greatness, and some men have greatness thrust upon them... while they're in the bathroom.

      By the way, while you were in the bathroom we took a vote. Go get 'em, tiger!

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    4. Re:Here comes the Snowball Effect by Jetra · · Score: 0

      I'll go only if you are willing to follow me into the Dragon's Den. No sense in dying alone.

  40. as someone who works at a bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Let me just give you a sample of the kind of data they will have access to, without a warrant, if Obama doesn't veto this.

    Every transaction you have made involving a card, ever, including the date, time of day, name of the merchant, city and state of the merchant, ID number of the terminal where the card was swiped, amount of transaction, etc etc etc.

    Every time you withdrew money from an ATM. it stores the amount, the location of the ATM, the time of day, etc.

    The same goes for online transactions.

    An image of every check you have ever written.

    Every deposit slip you have used.

    Every time you have talked to a teller in person, the interaction is recorded.

    Every time you have called the bank on the telephone.

    It is all there. Waiting for the government to use it, as it sees fit.

    ---

    Now, link that up with records from places like Wal-Mart. They can correlate card numbers with items. They know what brand of toothpaste you buy. They know what kind of toilet paper you use. They know if you like to buy a lot of baggies (are you a drug dealer?), if you buy a lot of cold medicine (are you a meth dealer?), if you buy a lot of condoms (are you a pimp?), etc etc etc.

    ---

    Now, link this up with projects like the CINDER (Cyber Insider Threat) ADAMS, and PRODIGAL (some of which have been program-managed by former hackers like Mudge from l0pht heavy industries). If you dig through these 'proposals', you will find academics saying things like "Maybe a target goes to lunch at a different time of day. that might indicate a threat". This is where our tax money is going. This is what is being built.

    1. Re:as someone who works at a bank by hawkingradiation · · Score: 1

      As if they don't do this or have this knowledge already, like the NDAA for "oking" toture, this bill already codifies what technology the NSA has in place. If not, this would be an incredible step for congress to foresee this type of technology.

      --
      Society use your Sciences
    2. Re:as someone who works at a bank by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While the NSA has these capabilities in place, this bill makes the same information available to lower levels of law enforcement, without the need for a warrant, provided that your information is accessed in the name of "national security." Currently the government would need to order the release of this information or obtain it by forced entry; under CISPA, all ISPs, seach engines, financial institutions, etc. will maintain permanent records of the same data make it readily accessible, all of the time.

  41. Regarding Orwell by conark · · Score: 1

    it makes you wonder if Orwell was a prophet or someone attempting to describe what to do for future rulers rather than warning them.

  42. he simply described what he saw in UK + USSR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he used to be an officer busting down the 'lesser races' inside the imperial british system in the early half of the 20th century.... if you will recall, that was when they claimed to 'own' billions of people, including all of india, pakistan, etc. they had recently fought a war with china to force them to sell drugs. anyways.

    orwell also fought in the spanish civil war in the 1930s as an anarchist, where he witnessed first hand how the communists would sell out and then destroy the anarchist movement in that country.

    he didnt imagine a lot, he just made history readable in a palatable format so that people could have an 'in' so they could understand what he was talking about. he 'translated' the boring facts of history into the language for the masses - the novel (film, if he were alive today perhaps)

  43. Waste of time by thereitis · · Score: 1

    Too much time spent on 'security', not enough time on jobs, education, infrastructure, ... At least they'll know everything about us when the USA goes down the shitter and China, India, etc.. take over. Shit, even Canada doesn't take the US seriously anymore.

    1. Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canadians never took the US seriously
      most Canadians honestly hate America and the effect it has on our country
      i wont even travel there, even by car any more

    2. Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We haven't taken the US seriously since the 60's. That's when we knew it was OOOOOVVVEEEEEERRR.

    3. Re:Waste of time by DaveyJJ · · Score: 2

      Oh yes we do. Herr Harper has his own agenda of paternalistic nonsense brewing. Sending government spokespeople to monitor Federally employed scientists at climate change conferences to make sure they don't say anything that might be, you know, true. Believing the tar sands are actually made of oil and are completely an utterly non-polluting during the extraction and distillation processes. Denying climate change. Opening friendly relations with Burma on the pretext of their "slow road to democracy" when it's really about that country's decent mineral wealth. Thinking evolution's a bit wrong. Completely f-ing up the purchase of F35 fighters by knowingly hiding their true cost of ownership. At least he's terrified of the abortion issue being re-opened ... not because he's pro-choice, but simply that whatever position he'd be forced to take would wipe his political career out. Harper would love love love to emulate the "best" aspects of controlling everything said and done ... you know, because father knows best.

      --
      DaveyJJ
  44. So did they pass it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aye m8s

  45. not a big deal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If ISP's can only provide "threat" information just don't do anything that constitutes a "threat" and you'll be fine.

    1. Re:not a big deal by Jetra · · Score: 0

      Define threat.

      I'm betting that there are a good number of "law-abiding" citizens who are all-too-willing to proclaim you as a Islamist backer.

  46. Mod please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (Score:5, Tinfoil)

    1. Re:Mod please by cffrost · · Score: 1

      (Score:5, Tinfoil)

      1984 called. They want their dystopia back.
      1909 called. They want their foil back.

      --
      Thank you, Edward Snowden.

      "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
  47. Sad Little People by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Can't get it through your heads, but it's true:
    Your
    Republic
    is
    Gone

    The throw little bones your way, called things like a "Ron Paul" or a "Democratic Alternative" so you can't quite give up hope, in pursuit something which became quite impossible, some time ago...

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
    1. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Bullets in the hands of citizens solve ALOT of problems.

    2. Re:Sad Little People by reboot246 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

    3. Re:Sad Little People by DreadPiratePizz · · Score: 5, Informative

      You do know this isn't law yet, right? And you also know that Obama has said he would veto it if it ever came to his desk right? The sky isn't falling dude.

    4. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Just like he was gonna veto NDAA until it gave him more power?

    5. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it doesn't get vetoed, then it's time to use the ammo box. This just fucked up the future of my children. I will give my life for them.

    6. Re:Sad Little People by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Informative

      >>>Obama has said he would veto it

      Wow you're a gullible little fucker. Didn't he ALSO say he would veto the NDAA? Yes. Then he signed it. The lying piece of shit.... I suspect Obama is really George Bush wearing a mask.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    7. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read somewhere (sorry, I don't remember where) that they removed/added provisions enough for him not to veto it.
      Your savior, His Holiness Obama, has failed yet again.

    8. Re:Sad Little People by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was passed by a veto-proof majority. Obama subsequently weakened it by executive order stating that any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.

      I swear, that "Obama supports the NDAA!" propaganda is the most devastatingly insidious lie since the "swiftboat veterans" for "truth".

    9. Re:Sad Little People by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      Our political system is Kang vs. Kodos.

    10. Re:Sad Little People by Lothsahn · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm sorry. He signed the bill into law. Had he truly been opposed to it, he could have vetoed it. Sure, his veto could have been overruled, but at least he'd be officially on the record that he didn't support it.

      Also, Obama specifically requested the removal of language that said the NDAA would not apply to US citizens or lawful residents. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DNDHbT44cY

      I'm sorry--I think there's a big difference between "swiftboat veterans" for "truth" and "Obama supported the NDAA and specifically requested some of the draconian language in the bill"

      --
      -=Lothsahn=-
    11. Re:Sad Little People by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Too bad the Supreme Court already nullified that (and other) executive orders which try to change law. They have ruled time-and-time again that the Legislative Power lies with the congress, not the president, and the written act of the bill overrules signing statements or E.O.s

      Oh and "it was passed by a vetoproof majority" doesn't mean crap to me. He still could have vetoed it, and then I would have respected the man for honoring his commitment to uphold the Constitution (and the right to trial in the 6th).

      >>>any one of a panel of six people could unilaterally overrule it.

      This doesn't mean crap to me either. The Constitution says a "jury of your peers" shall decide your guilt and punishment (or innocence), not a panel of unelected bureaucrats that serve the pleasure of the president and his desire to be "touch on crime" (think George Bush or Mitt Romney). Heck, not even the right to defend yourself exists.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    12. Re:Sad Little People by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1

      How many members of his own party voted for it? How many of those would vote to override the President's veto? Just because it got passed my a "veto-proof" majority, that doesn't mean that the veto would be overturned.

    13. Re:Sad Little People by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      "Well, I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!"

      (In this case Rocky Anderson, but go ahead and hit me with the next line.)

    14. Re:Sad Little People by artor3 · · Score: 0

      Not only would his veto have done nothing, it would have also opened the door to attack ads about how he vetoed healthcare for wounded veterans, since that's also in the bill. The man shouldn't fall on his sword just to keep you happy.

      And that whole thing about taking out language regarding the bill's application to US citizens... read it for yourself. I've posted it to this site a dozen times. Here is is again. Page 266-67.

      The requirement to detain a person in military custody under this section does not extend to citizens of the United States. ... Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency with regard to a covered person, regardless whether such covered person is held in military custody.

    15. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So apparently no one reads articles. It passed the House, it is now headed for the Senate where if it passes it will go to the White House, where it will either be signed into law or vetoed. This has NOT been signed into law as of yet.

    16. Re:Sad Little People by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now you have done it. Here comes the feds!

    17. Re:Sad Little People by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      they've always *been* here....

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    18. Re:Sad Little People by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      and no matter who is in office, its still a Monty Burns effect.

      I'm waiting for some high ranking official to finally say release the hounds!.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    19. Re:Sad Little People by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      he would have got away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids!

    20. Re:Sad Little People by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Not only would his veto have done nothing, it would have also opened the door to attack ads about how he vetoed healthcare for wounded veterans, since that's also in the bill. The man shouldn't fall on his sword just to keep you happy.

      So... 'tis better to assrape the population, than get a little mud on your suit?

      Damn, we are out of options, aren't we?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    21. Re:Sad Little People by NIN1385 · · Score: 2

      I can't help but wonder if this is their end-game... I mean are they looking for this kind of thing to happen so they become martyrs? Seriously, I am wondering if this is what they want so they can rally the masses behind even more legislation to make this just like 1984. Think about it, the possibilities are limitless when you get the angry mob on your side. When people see red, they don't think they just react. It's not until the situation is DE-escalated when most people stop and think real hard about what the fight was really about. This scares the shit out of me. The recent poll may not have been too far off, we will succeed in extinction before any of that other shit for this very reason.

      --

      If carrots got you drunk, rabbits would be fucked up. - Comedian Mitch Hedberg R.I.P. 03/30/68-2/24/05
    22. Re:Sad Little People by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

      Actually, that creates problems.

    23. Re:Sad Little People by slick7 · · Score: 0

      Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

      Actually, that creates problems.

      Prisons would be a better fix. Becomming Bubba's bitch solves even more problems.

      --
      The mind conceives, the body achieves, the spirit manifests.
    24. Re:Sad Little People by davydagger · · Score: 1
      but didn't you hear, he signed a declaration saying he strongly disagreed with it. Every last one of his followers is running around like a chicken with their head cut off say he was doing something about it.

      its like having cake and eating it too right?

    25. Re:Sad Little People by davydagger · · Score: 1

      he could have veto'ed it in protest with the same effect sending a stronger message, if not delaying its action and causing real disruption.

    26. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the Republic part is still there, you have no monarch. I've never understood the American fixation on the head of state over the things that actually make a republic worth living in, a constitution, a strong inclusive democracy, equality.

      See you all in the cells, oh the irony of creating the tools that will destroy us.

    27. Re:Sad Little People by N1CK3Y · · Score: 0

      I think they are actually related, as many presidents have been in the past.

    28. Re:Sad Little People by conark · · Score: 1

      Well, if you watch enough George Carlin, you'll begin to realize that both parties really are one and the same. Politicians are politicians and they get up into power because they lie. Keep the masses believing in something, keep dangling carrots but make sure you change out the carrot to different flavored cakes to keep them guessing and hoping. The important choices are never given to us. We only get to choose between paper or plastic. And even that part is becoming slowly taken away. The whole system is rigged with untraceable and endless lines of red tape that prop up such a frail thing that manages to work for these crooks. In turn, they keep us fighting over petty issues while they run to the bank and use the money to provide more laws that protect them.

    29. Re:Sad Little People by water-and-sewer · · Score: 1, Troll

      Attention retard: posts like yours are exactly what this bill is supposed to facilitate tracking down. CISPA allows the govt unprecedented rights to get to the source of commentards making oblique threats against politicians, and since Congresswoman Giffords got shot in the head you should just assume no one is feeling overly sympathetic to would-be assassins.

      --
      If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.
    30. Re:Sad Little People by kayditty · · Score: 0

      Not only would his veto have done nothing, it would have also opened the door to attack ads about how he vetoed healthcare for wounded veterans, since that's also in the bill.

      um, ok? the absurdity of this is just mind-boggling. so what you're suggesting is you support someone being in power for no other reason than their desire to be in power, while they do things antithetical to the health of the nation? please, cry me a river because your re-election campaign is ruined.

      I'm sure you'll do an about face during your second term, right? why would I ever doubt you, dear leader?

      you people are absolutely fucking perverted. you are nothing but an indoctrinated, state-worshipping lemming. I'm not even kidding. do some introspection and save yourself from this mind-numbing filth. you are actually coming out and saying that The President of the United States America has no obligation to do anything to better the circumstances of the nation he is representing, so long as whatever he may do is in discord with his ability to retain office.

      I'm pretty sure that "falling on his sword to keep you happy," whatever that even means, is exactly what he should do. I think you have it backward. I don't give a fuck about being kept happy--that's your bag, because all this is to you is a popularity contest. it's partisan nonsense, and has no relevance to logic or truth. he should fall on his sword because he's damn near treasonous, shitting on the United States Constitution without abandon. I won't mind if you go down with him; it will happen eventually. it always does.

    31. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      again, veto-proof majority. if he would have vetoed it, it would have been back on his desk the same day with an even bigger majority, with a note attached telling him that what little support he had among moderate dems on the hill is now completely gone, and that he was now officially persona non grata in congress.

      thank god you're not a political advisor. that would have been an epically stupid idea.

    32. Re:Sad Little People by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So, how many problems in the US in, say, the last 10 years have been solved by an armed populous? The USAPATRIOT Act? The DMCA? The TSA?

      Or do bullets just act as a security blanket to prevent people from bothering to get actively involved in the democratic process because they 'can always overthrow the government later if it gets really bad...'

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    33. Re:Sad Little People by iter8 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This country is awash in guns. What good has that done? Brains in the heads of citizens would do much more.

    34. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An armed revolution will not work with the bullets we all carry. When 500,000+ armed drones are constantly flying overhead, armored vehicles, armored traitorous thugs, what are 9mm bullets really going to do? Has it helped the 100,000s of dead Iraqis with their AK-47s? Our ammo is only good at killing ourselves and they know it.
      Before you go off and do something stupid, think it through thoroughly.
      If there is going to be any success in a revolution it is going to involve specialized knowledge and organization. If you want to be useful and actually do something to help the fight when it comes, educate yourself as much as possible.

    35. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sounds nice that Obama says he will veto it. But I suggest it's rhetoric to make him sound more just and Constitutional. He's drooling to sign this bill. Bet on it. If he had any real problems it wouldn't have gotten this far. But there is no advantage to him saying he wants the bill. So if it comes to his desk, he will deride some minor minor problems with it - but sign it anyway. We need to get back to the original Constitutional roots of our Country. Peaceful (strongly preferable to the alternative) Revolution is the best way to accomplish it. Action though, is required.

    36. Re:Sad Little People by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      The Constitution says a "jury of your peers" shall decide your guilt and punishment

      mvdwege@gaheris:~$ grep -i peers const.txt
      mvdwege@gaheris:~$

      Apparently it doesn't.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    37. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It only became "impossible" because people are allowing it.

    38. Re:Sad Little People by alexo · · Score: 1

      If it doesn't get vetoed, then it's time to use the ammo box. This just fucked up the future of my children. I will give my life for them.

      The fuck you will.

      You don't even have the conviction to back your grandstanding with a nick.
      When it comes to actual actions you will do jack shit.

    39. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bad time to not RTFA and make that comment. Nice knowing you, buddy.

    40. Re:Sad Little People by udoschuermann · · Score: 2

      Psychologically it's easily explained: There is no saturation point for power (or money for that matter) where the powerful or the rich says, "you know, I've got enough now, so I'm going to settle down, stop going for ever more power and cash, and I will just enjoy what I have amassed from now on." Never going to happen.

      So the striving for more power and money continues, but as the gap widens between the powerful and the exploited (or rich and poor), the ones on top must jealously guard their position against others who would pull them down on the scramble for the top of the heap. And so laws are passed to help people at the top maintain their position of power.

      CISPA is one of those laws, and it does away with a lot of the inconveniences of having to go through formal processes of getting approval from judges, protecting information, or holding the government responsible for the inevitable errors of incompetence that expose people's data, or ruin lives. It's a blank check for the government to get around all that, and just get done what they feel they should be doing and want to be doing.

      Democracy? Oh yeah, the whole voting thing is basically just political entertainment. Doesn't much matter who wins, all of the players are in the pockets of industry anyway, and industry pays very well. What incentive do they have to turn their backs on the cash cow?

      --
      --Udo.
    41. Re:Sad Little People by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      No they don't. They just shift the problem from one thing to another.

    42. Re:Sad Little People by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Say that without the cowardly mantle of anonymity and it might mean something.

    43. Re:Sad Little People by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The throw little bones your way, called things like a "Ron Paul" or a "Democratic Alternative"

      Or "Campaign Trail Obama"

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    44. Re:Sad Little People by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Or Douche vs. Turd if you prefer.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    45. Re:Sad Little People by speederaser · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. He signed the bill into law. Had he truly been opposed to it, he could have vetoed it. Sure, his veto could have been overruled, but at least he'd be officially on the record that he didn't support it.

      The president can only amend a law with a signing statement if he signs the law.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement

      If the president vetoes it and gets overruled then the law doesn't pass his desk again. Obama did the best thing he could under the circumstances.

    46. Re:Sad Little People by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    47. Re:Sad Little People by berashith · · Score: 1

      that guy has said all kinds of shit. He is the worst kind of liar. At least the previous ones admitted what they were up to. This guy believes his own words, all the way up until he changes them to the current easiest direction, then denies that he ever said or meant the first statement.

    48. Re:Sad Little People by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Unless you're an undertaker. Then we're creating jobs!

    49. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I honestly hope that you're being serious, but unfortunately, I haven't even the slightest hint of belief that you will do what you say.

    50. Re:Sad Little People by Githaron · · Score: 1

      Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

      Actually, that creates problems.

      I just realized that when I commented, I read the original quote as "Bullets in the hands of corrupt politicians solve even more problems".

    51. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So long as it's done appropriately and not entirely retarded like Arizona was. Not even the right damn target, let alone the most retarded way to go about it.

    52. Re:Sad Little People by bonehead · · Score: 1

      An armed revolution will not work with the bullets we all carry. When 500,000+ armed drones are constantly flying overhead, armored vehicles, armored traitorous thugs, what are 9mm bullets really going to do? Has it helped the 100,000s of dead Iraqis with their AK-47s? Our ammo is only good at killing ourselves and they know it.
      Before you go off and do something stupid, think it through thoroughly.
      If there is going to be any success in a revolution it is going to involve specialized knowledge and organization. If you want to be useful and actually do something to help the fight when it comes, educate yourself as much as possible.

      Asking an American soldier to fire on Iraqis is a whole different animal than asking that soldier to fire on his neighbors. The corrupt powers that be might give the order to fire, but the actual guys with their fingers on the triggers, or at the controls of the drones, won't be so likely to follow that order.

      The American military wouldn't be nearly as effective against a revolution as many folks seem to believe.

    53. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you suffer for your children's fate?

    54. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you.

    55. Re:Sad Little People by luther349 · · Score: 1

      well see people have a nasty habit of not being willing to fight unless forced so until shit happens to them they care less bought the other guy starving in the street.

    56. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The corrupt situation perpetuates itself, not allowing anyone in who can or will change the system from the inside. The people are brainwashed and don't realize what's going on around them as long as they have their 100 channels of mind numbing material and can pick up their favorite song for 99 on iTunes.

      What would you have us do?

    57. Re:Sad Little People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: too bad the supremes...

      No consistency there. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, and sometimes they simply don't deign to weigh in.

      Da Prez just issued another one today, down the road at Ft. Stewart, on the predation of vets and their families by diploma mills and even respectable institutions of higher learning with perhaps too much of a dollar sign in their eyes, etc. Laudable motive perhaps, but well exceeding his authority as CIC, beyond the narrow confines of DoD appropriations being spent. It was a matter for Congress to begin with, though.

    58. Re:Sad Little People by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      No, here is the most devastatingly insidious lie since "switboat": artor3 is not a gullible chump.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
    59. Re:Sad Little People by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Senator Obama was also against the warantless wiretaps, until it came time to actually vote. Clinton and O both voted for them.

  48. Early Vote by jmactacular · · Score: 1

    Everywhere is saying the vote was supposed to happen tomorrow. I'm guessing Ron Paul was planning on returning to Washington from the campaign trail to vote on it tomorrow, and someone rushed it to the House floor early before the Internet caught wind of this and stopped it like SOPA. WTF.

  49. So why isn't this getting the negative attention? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That SOPA/PIPA got?

    All the sites that blocked access to their content for a day? We should be doing the same for this crap.

  50. Title 50 people by Harkin · · Score: 1

    Just because someone adds something to a bill it does not override other laws unless it specifically provides such provisions. I do not see anywhere in this law where Title 50 is amended to allow for collection of this information without a warrant. If a US corporation where to provide PI of a US Person in any threat report for which there was not an outstanding warrant covering the collection of that information the government would be unable to report on that information or utilize it in any manner. At some point you have to trust the government will follow the law otherwise whats the point, why even care if they are passing this bill if they would do it anyway. This is not some Orwellian we are watching you bill, it really just provides a framework for sharing information between corporate entities and the government and controlling who maintains liability for the collection and storage of that information. IE if in the case your information where included in a report in violation of the law it would be the government who is liable not the providing entity. Again, this does not modify the rigor to which a government entity must prove a collection is necessary.

    1. Re:Title 50 people by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      In the past NSA, CIA and GCHQ work would never "exist" in any legal frame work, privacy or policy context. They did what they did under embassies, from space, on dedicated lines in far away places.
      i.e. your powerful offensive military signals/cyber units (NSA, DIA?, CIA...) are now very close to your domestic telcos in a legal usable way....
      Now anyone connected to the USA are another step closer to everyday domestic closed court use of logs with a telco getting total immunity if your swept up.
      As for trust read up on:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MINARET
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    2. Re:Title 50 people by Harkin · · Score: 1

      True, the past was the wild wild west of intelligence. However, we now have laws some of which where specifically created in response to the incidents you linked to. Take the FISA, there are liabilities associated with violations which could be levied against a telco if they where to provide information without a warrant. This law moves that liability unto the collecting agency, so someone is still liable if the law is broken but it is better defined who that person is. One thing to remember though, there is a big difference between collection and reporting. It is possible that your communications could be collected given the nature of the interent, however that collection can not be reported on. There is also the second possibility that someone could be collected against in error. IE, appeared to be a foreign actor but was in reality a US citizen. I would assume this has to occur, because there are provisions for that and they are not, go get a FISA and continue collection like nothing happened. There are a massive number of protections that we have as citizens that most people don't even realize they have. Mostly this is cause by a lack of understanding / even attempting to read the law. That is not to say we have a perfect system, the laws regulating the TSA need some serious lovin.

      As for trusting the government, it wasn't a question. Either you do, and can have a meaningful conversation about the law or you don't and there isn't a point as then it doesn't matter what the law says.

      We live in a democracy, it is our responsibility to understand and act upon the law to the best of our ability and that doesn't mean, oppose all laws. Like most things in life there is a balance. I believe that security and freedom are not mutually exclusive concepts but you have to pay attention and work for it. In the end of the day the most important thing to remember is that freedom isn't free.

  51. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do any Americans still seriously believe that they live in the land of the free (or the home of the brave, for that matter)?

    Better ask the NSA, I guess..

  52. So sad by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    Goldwater, Eisenhower, Teddy, and Lincoln are no doubt rolling in their graves.

    The republicans have been taken over by neo-cons who only care about big business and themselves. IOW, the end justifies the means.

    I can only hope that the true republicans will create a new party, perhaps the first person will be David Walker (a social moderate, strong fiscal conservative), and call it the GoldWater party. Let the neo-cons and religious fanatics have their own damn party. As it is, the neo-cons have invaded the Libertarian party over the last 8 years to the point that I quit going to meetings. I was ready to blow the head off the next GD neo-con that screamed that we needed to support W and fight against abortion and gay marriage. At this time, I would gladly join a GoldWater Party.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  53. Re:So why isn't this getting the negative attentio by Dripdry · · Score: 1

    Google and other companies receive immunity from any consequences, so they're ok with it.

    --
    -
  54. Ron Paul by englishknnigits · · Score: 0

    voted against it and spoke out against it.

    1. Re:Ron Paul by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

      No he did NOT do the former ... he abstained today. You're confusing today's vote with the 2011 bill and vote. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll073.xml

      --
      DaveyJJ
    2. Re:Ron Paul by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

      My bad ... that roll was http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml as cited above. Tired. But he still abstained.

      --
      DaveyJJ
    3. Re:Ron Paul by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      voted against it and spoke out against it.

      Ron Paul did not vote at all.

  55. International just means you're watched by more by Burz · · Score: 1

    than one government. The biggest technical hope there is to reduce spying is to migrate services into anonymous networks.

  56. No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The citizens have to be motivated to get up and use those bullets for the greater good, at great personal risk and with great personal sacrifice.

    Until enough people get to that point, the bullets do no good at all.

    People will not get to that point if they are largely stupid and complacent, which most Americans are.

    1. Re:No they don't. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "If we overthrew the government, we couldn't watch The Voice anymore."

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:No they don't. by Omestes · · Score: 0

      Either that or some of us feel that whatever happens after the revolution will be worse than what we have now. Whose idea of "right" will be inflicted on who afterwards? I doubt that we're at all capable of the grand compromises that happened after our original revolution. Look at the typical discussion on issues about rights, responsibilities, and ethics, and governance in general, now tell me if you would really trust any of those people (of whatever view) to set the future of this country?

      Some of us also feel murder is something that should be taken VERY seriously, and generally avoided at all costs (even if that person doesn't agree with me). Further, some of us might also feel that we haven't exhausted our options yet, being that we generally ignore the biggest option, VOTING, and the second two biggest options; education, and protest.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    3. Re:No they don't. by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>>Some of us also feel murder is something that should be taken VERY seriously, and generally avoided at all costs

      Most of these politicians are near death anyway. So they end-up in a coffin 20-30 years ahead of schedule... in the long term it matters not. 100 years from now, we probably won't even remember their names.

      BUT you raise a good point about the after-revolution.

      Probably the new Constitution would be written to give the government all kinds of new authority (as happened with the EU Constitution aka Lisbon Treaty). We're better-off trying to restore the existing document piece-by-piece by electing ourselves into Congress and then repealing these bad laws. As Congressman Paul says, "It took 80 years to reach this point, and may take just as long to undo the bad legislation."

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    4. Re:No they don't. by mug+funky · · Score: 1

      so then it's the media moguls that have to go (it's amazing that old age hasn't taken one in particular already)

    5. Re:No they don't. by Genda · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You want to see some changes?

      Reinstated Glass-Steagall

      Formalize the separation between Church and State.

      Add a new separation between Business and State

      Provide free education through Masters Degree, and for every year after your AA, you have to work as a teacher for 1 year, all your living expenses will be covered and you'll receive a small stipend OR you will serve in the National Guard OR you will work to rebuild the nations infrastructure... pick

      Less than 3% of the nations educational budget should go to administrators... figure out how to divvy that up guys. Education is not an industry, its a birthright

      People will pass a basic test to vote. Those that don't vote will pay a small tax. Those that do vote will receive a small credit. People want to act like idiots, we'll put the dots close together for a couple generations until they get the hint.

      We provide contraception, we teach reproductive health and we explain to young people actions have consequences, some that last a lifetime. We stop being squeamish about telling people the friggin truth and we get desperately honest with one another on a social scale.

      We put checks and balances back in, and we pull the fascist imbeciles out.

      We stop prosecuting whistle blowers and make them national heroes instead.

      We subsidize elections and media donates precisely the same amount of air time to each candidate. Anyone can run for anything, and a non-partisan organization provides extensive information on each candidate for public consumption. This organization is composed of volunteers from diverse backgrounds and beliefs and changes governing members on a frequent and short term basis.

      Freedom of the press and protection from ideological control by any single group, corporate interest, or ideological body will be strictly enforced by law.

      Put a choke hold on the banks, muzzle them, screw the lid on so tight they pop, follow up by doing the same to the insurance companies.

      Split health care into for profit and not for profit. Ensure that not for profit health care is excellent, and accessible to everyone. People who are injured in the commission of felonies and misdemeanor pay 10 times the going rate and if unable to pay must perform public service until the debt is paid.

      Lemme see, did I miss anything? I'm sure I did. Well this is a good start. I figure this might make a dent in the national stupid that pervades our society today.

    6. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And not a single one of these (excellent) ideas is practicable.

      There are far, far too many people who stand to lose, who will block even a hint of these things happening.

    7. Re:No they don't. by davydagger · · Score: 2
      No, 85% of your post is a whole mess of over-emotional stupid, making half ass stabs at solving obvious problems with no clear solutions, or comically fail options that'd make problems worse.

      Oh and you forgot about freedom of speech, press, media, especially protecting the rights of dissidents, enforcing privacy rights, oh and of course the ever present natural limits of all rights....when they impinge on someone elses rights.

    8. Re:No they don't. by Jstlook · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Add a new separation between Business and State.

      This needs to be said again and again, until it is heard.

      If a business wants their corporate viewpoint heard in government, they need to encourage their employees, clients/customers, and distributors to vote in their favor, rather than simply throwing money at the problem.

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    9. Re:No they don't. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      That would be nice. But then again, wasn't the internet supposed to kill them off eventually, or at least that was the meme of the moment in the late 90's.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    10. Re:No they don't. by Patch86 · · Score: 2

      There's a BBC version that will still be available in the event of the collapse of the USA, so don't worry, it'll be fine.

    11. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But but all those things are against the free market economy, they are communist pinko-commie socialist evil

    12. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter....

    13. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with a lot of that. Disagree with Jim Crow laws and subsidizing elections. Add these:
      1. Outlaw all political ads on TV.
      2. Reverse "corporations are people" decision.
      3. Outlaw amendments/riders on congressional legislation.
      4. Nationalize healthcare. It's the only way to cover pre-existing conditions.
      5. Nationalize malpractice insurance.
      6. Legalize marijuana.
      7. Return to Clinton-era tax rates.

    14. Re:No they don't. by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

      It will be like this:
      REMAIN INDOORS

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    15. Re:No they don't. by loneDreamer · · Score: 1

      I agree with 80% of what you said. Except that I don't know what you pretend to do with another gazillion MBAs. IMHO, education means simple things like knowing your rights, undertanding money, understanding democracy. That should be free for all.

      Specific careers and titles? No. A country needs more balance than that and at the current education prices you will get a system more bankrupt that healthcare. I say equal opportunity and access to higher education, but with cheap credit, high requirements for entry and top quality.

    16. Re:No they don't. by hlavac · · Score: 2

      Czech here. There can be revolution without a bloodshed. All it takes is for everyone to realize the governemnt does not represent the people anymore and nobody really trusts it...

    17. Re:No they don't. by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Tell me what country will operate like that and I'm moving there.

    18. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Add a new separation between Business and State"

      If you did this, the state would be without its remaining means of access to us. It would be an entity that exists only as an idea, with no actual resources. I'm all for it mind you, but most people who wish to merely limit the state can't square the circle of wanting a state and wanting it disjoint from business. You cannot avoid that link if you desire any form of statism.

    19. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All you said here was:

      Fascism is stupid.

      Socialism/communism is amazing.

      You're just proven you're just as stupid as the fascists, good job.

    20. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is literally fascism, you dumb liberal turd, which makes your throwing around of 'fascist' as a generic insult even the more hilarious considering you're advocating a program that would be right out of Mussolini's handbook. The only thing you forgot is expelling the untermenschen that don't pass your bourgeois voting test.

    21. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reinstated Glass-Steagall

      Commie! You are trying to limit the inalienable right of a corporation to screw its customers.

      Formalize the separation between Church and State.

      That's already formalized, just not enforced. Blasphemer! You are trying to expand the power of government over religion!

      Add a new separation between Business and State

      Liberal! The tight integration between business and state is what makes our country so succesful!

      Provide free education through Masters Degree, and for every year after your AA, you have to work as a teacher for 1 year, all your living expenses will be covered and you'll receive a small stipend OR you will serve in the National Guard OR you will work to rebuild the nations infrastructure...

      Socialist! Government funds should go towards strengthening the powerful, not cuddling the bottom feeders!

      Less than 3% of the nations educational budget should go to administrators

      Anarchist! No single senator can live off of such a strict budget!

      People will pass a basic test to vote. Those that don't vote will pay a small tax. Those that do vote will receive a small credit. People want to act like idiots, we'll put the dots close together for a couple generations until they get the hint.

      Elitist! Democracy works best when the uninformed masses have the strongest voice!

      We provide contraception, we teach reproductive health and we explain to young people actions have consequences, some that last a lifetime.

      Sodomite! The first rule of sex is that you do not speak about sex.

      We put checks and balances back in, and we pull the fascist imbeciles out. We stop prosecuting whistle blowers and make them national heroes instead.

      Terrorist! Every public company has the right to privacy, and full freedom to enforce that right.

      Anyway, you get the gist. Anything challenging the status quo have been derogatory labeled before it is even uttered. That has been true for the last 50 years, at least since McCarthy.

    22. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes, more coercion from government is the answer.. and this gets a 5?Forcing me to take a test allowing me to vote? you people are even more scarier that this fucking bill.

    23. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and what army?

    24. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you miss something ? Sure you did. You missed the fact that the fat cats in charge will not allow you to implement said changes. You also missed basic stuff like Military Industrial Complex being allowed to steal far too much money from the people through unjust wars and simple huge budgets.

    25. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot the laws against making money and keeping it.

    26. Re:No they don't. by mea_culpa · · Score: 1

      We just need to protect and defend the constitution. That is all.

    27. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "People will pass a basic test to vote. Those that don't vote will pay a small tax. Those that do vote will receive a small credit. People want to act like idiots, we'll put the dots close together for a couple generations until they get the hint."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_%28United_States%29
      These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[1] achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters as well as poor whites who immigrated after the year specified.

    28. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... which is not to say there wasn't plenty of poorly thought out abuses of the public in the rest of it too, but there's only so much one AC can do before just getting depressed...

    29. Re:No they don't. by Wild_dog! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Thomas Jefferson as part of the original bill of rights put Freedom from Monopoly as one of those rights because of the doings of a then infamous group called the East India Trading Company which resulted in our revolutionary war.
      Unfortunately, the business lobby was as strong in his day and even though he attempted to get it put in the constitution something like 12 times during his time in the public sphere, it was shot down each time.

    30. Re:No they don't. by Bigby · · Score: 1

      They will just pay the aforementioned people to throw the same money at the problem. There is no feasible why to separate Business and State without reducing the power of one so there is no interest in control from the other.

    31. Re:No they don't. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      People will pass a basic test to vote. Those that don't vote will pay a small tax. Those that do vote will receive a small credit. People want to act like idiots, we'll put the dots close together for a couple generations until they get the hint.

      Testing has caused a shitstorm every time. And then after proposing this, you want to reward people for voting even if they don't give a shit? What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    32. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and while we're at it...

      Pass no bills without reading them out loud,
      Mandatory sunset clauses on everything,
      And let's give everyone a high-speed Internet connection for free.
      Make being mean illegal,
      Free beer for everyone,
      And ...let's outlaw crime! Yeah, get rid of it completely! Cool!
      Let's outlaw poverty too!
      Oh, I know, how about mandatory world peace! ...and let's pass a law against cancer! And AIDS! And mosquitoes! And homelessness, child abuse, hunger, and sadness!

      In other words, thanks for your list, but ...SO WHAT?! I can make a list too. How are you going to get it into the government?

    33. Re:No they don't. by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      If a business wants their corporate viewpoint heard in government, they need to encourage their employees, clients/customers, and distributors to vote in their favor, rather than simply throwing money at the problem.

      Well, it doesn't work, while throwing money works. Stopping corruption is going to take more than just "This needs to be said again and again, until it is heard.". A lot more.

      Because there is always a fine line between proper lobbying and pure corruption. And also, when regulating a business, the lawmaker needs to understand how the business works. And how do you get informed about the whereabouts of a business? By asking said business. Some business are going to try to be straightforward in the process, some will abuse it.

    34. Re:No they don't. by denvergeek · · Score: 1

      You're just proven you're just as stupid as the fascists, good job.

      You've just proven that you're just as stupid as the fascists.

      Stupid is as stupid...ahh fuck it.

    35. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As long as usury exists the banks will be able to create enough credit to buy back anything that you try to take away from them.

      Take away usury and the economy as we know it doesn't exist. All leverage will be gone and we'll all be spending most of our energies just trying to survive from day to day as we struggle to get the food, water, shelter, and other necessities that we need to survive.

      There is no easy solution. Life is going to suck one way or another, so basically it comes down to choosing your pain.

    36. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      simple things like knowing your rights, undertanding money, understanding democracy

      I can tell you are not European, if you were this would read:

      simple things like knowing your rights, undertanding money, understanding democracy, understanding your right to free healthcare

    37. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent - too bad we're too worked up in our USA about reality TV, Cupcake ware, and Backwater Bayou Alligator Clans....
      while our basics are slipping away. Actually like this bill, because it cuts all the crap out and gives the govt the privacy required once again, so the whole world doesn't get to read about how we go about things, almost before their broadcast. It's really the only way we can keep ahead of the world

    38. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have my vote! I have said much of the same before and I couldn't agree with you more!

    39. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheers!!! our counrties SOUL was sold, when the Supreme Court said politics, votes and the direction of our country can be bought by folks with large pocketbooks, motive and intention - all without really knowing who those folks are..

      Amazing - Obama 2012 all the way - TYVM

    40. Re:No they don't. by tomthegeek · · Score: 1

      At least this is a clear plan. Most of what we're doing now is just a bunch of asshole fucking us around.

    41. Re:No they don't. by tomthegeek · · Score: 1

      The ideas are practical, implementing them is simply a matter of using the three boxes.

    42. Re:No they don't. by Keith111 · · Score: 1

      Add a new separation between Business and State.

      This needs to be said again and again, until it is heard.

      That's really a nice dream, too bad nothing short of a large scale violent revolution is going to get that to happen. Where's Tyler Durden when we need him?

    43. Re:No they don't. by sdguero · · Score: 1

      Fyi, President Obama thinks that separation of government and business is a very very bad thing. He states so very clearly in "Audactiy of Hope" several times. He argues that special interests and corporate lobbyists are integral to modern democracy.

      This is the thing I disagree with most about his platform.

    44. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you believe that MOST Americans agree with this laundry list?

      I don't believe that. Most of them are ignorant fauxnews watching drones. If there is a revolution, and the retards are involved in re-writing the new constitution, we'll be even MORE fucked than you can possibly imagine.

    45. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Define "business". Some animals are more equal than others: This bill is huge bone for the big national ISPs, carriers, telcos, cable operators, and ya twitfaceplex, who are effectively, if not actually, merging into a duopoly (as a figleaf, for the appearance of competition). All now public, thus effectively govt orgs, being paid out of the public trough for customer data, when not marketing to the "competition", bottom-feeders, etc. Fuck the small businesses that produce instead of rape.

      I channel Young, see a huge future for piracy. But that's enough of that.

      Dissapointed in Kingston, though. Supposed to be for main street. Gotta wonder sometimes.

       

    46. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He had something to do with the 1st amendment, too, as I recall. Now soundly trumped by the patents and copyright clause in the hands of an IP lobby with more money than sense. Likely a freedom from monopoly amendment would have suffered in a similiar manner at the hands of the general welfare. "What's good for General Motors is good for America", "Too big to fail, etc."

      What might really, and some might consider this counter-intuitive, have been the best trump on monopoly would have been a Randian explicit prohibition on govt. interference in contracts. Perhaps the founders considered that so self-evident that explicit consideration would have been tantamount to an invitation to meddle. We can see now that it did no good for freedom of speech, though, in the long run.

    47. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Corporations must invest nationally into public infrastructure 10% of their annual gross earnings.

    48. Re:No they don't. by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      You want to see some changes?

      Reinstated Glass-Steagall

      Formalize the separation between Church and State.

      Add a new separation between Business and State

      Provide free education through Masters Degree, and for every year after your AA, you have to work as a teacher for 1 year, all your living expenses will be covered and you'll receive a small stipend OR you will serve in the National Guard OR you will work to rebuild the nations infrastructure... pick

      Less than 3% of the nations educational budget should go to administrators... figure out how to divvy that up guys. Education is not an industry, its a birthright

      People will pass a basic test to vote. Those that don't vote will pay a small tax. Those that do vote will receive a small credit. People want to act like idiots, we'll put the dots close together for a couple generations until they get the hint.

      We provide contraception, we teach reproductive health and we explain to young people actions have consequences, some that last a lifetime. We stop being squeamish about telling people the friggin truth and we get desperately honest with one another on a social scale.

      We put checks and balances back in, and we pull the fascist imbeciles out.

      We stop prosecuting whistle blowers and make them national heroes instead.

      We subsidize elections and media donates precisely the same amount of air time to each candidate. Anyone can run for anything, and a non-partisan organization provides extensive information on each candidate for public consumption. This organization is composed of volunteers from diverse backgrounds and beliefs and changes governing members on a frequent and short term basis.

      Freedom of the press and protection from ideological control by any single group, corporate interest, or ideological body will be strictly enforced by law.

      Put a choke hold on the banks, muzzle them, screw the lid on so tight they pop, follow up by doing the same to the insurance companies.

      Split health care into for profit and not for profit. Ensure that not for profit health care is excellent, and accessible to everyone. People who are injured in the commission of felonies and misdemeanor pay 10 times the going rate and if unable to pay must perform public service until the debt is paid.

      Lemme see, did I miss anything? I'm sure I did. Well this is a good start. I figure this might make a dent in the national stupid that pervades our society today.

      While you are ranting and certainly angry about the state of freedom in the USA, your anger or rage is not being represented by any intelligent legislator. I guess they know when to win and when to lose,, as election year is next year for some.

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    49. Re:No they don't. by gmanterry · · Score: 1

      You want to see some changes?

      Reinstated Glass-Steagall

      Formalize the separation between Church and State.

      Add a new separation between Business and State

      Provide free education through Masters Degree, and for every year after your AA, you have to work as a teacher for 1 year, all your living expenses will be covered and you'll receive a small stipend OR you will serve in the National Guard OR you will work to rebuild the nations infrastructure... pick

      Less than 3% of the nations educational budget should go to administrators... figure out how to divvy that up guys. Education is not an industry, its a birthright

      People will pass a basic test to vote. Those that don't vote will pay a small tax. Those that do vote will receive a small credit. People want to act like idiots, we'll put the dots close together for a couple generations until they get the hint.

      We provide contraception, we teach reproductive health and we explain to young people actions have consequences, some that last a lifetime. We stop being squeamish about telling people the friggin truth and we get desperately honest with one another on a social scale.

      We put checks and balances back in, and we pull the fascist imbeciles out.

      We stop prosecuting whistle blowers and make them national heroes instead.

      We subsidize elections and media donates precisely the same amount of air time to each candidate. Anyone can run for anything, and a non-partisan organization provides extensive information on each candidate for public consumption. This organization is composed of volunteers from diverse backgrounds and beliefs and changes governing members on a frequent and short term basis.

      Freedom of the press and protection from ideological control by any single group, corporate interest, or ideological body will be strictly enforced by law.

      Put a choke hold on the banks, muzzle them, screw the lid on so tight they pop, follow up by doing the same to the insurance companies.

      Split health care into for profit and not for profit. Ensure that not for profit health care is excellent, and accessible to everyone. People who are injured in the commission of felonies and misdemeanor pay 10 times the going rate and if unable to pay must perform public service until the debt is paid.

      Lemme see, did I miss anything? I'm sure I did. Well this is a good start. I figure this might make a dent in the national stupid that pervades our society today.

      I want Genda to run for President. Right on.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    50. Re:No they don't. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then you get into the nice situation where your employer completely owns you and will make you vote the way they want you to...if you want to keep your job that is... So where's your democracy then?
      We had it in Europe in the 1900's and it wasn't a nice time to be alive if you weren't a business owner.

  57. See What Happens? by fullback · · Score: 1

    Americans have elected politicians over and over again who write and pass laws like this and the Patriot Act. It's what the majority of your people want. Those too lazy or docile to vote differently have to accept their fate.

    1. Re:See What Happens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those too lazy or docile to vote differently ...

      Did you know that 'docile' means able to be educated?

  58. Goldwater party sounds like by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a sexual pastime for Libertarian goldbugs.

  59. Now I'm one of those socialist Canucks, but ... by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

    To become a Law in your country, doesn't a Bill first have to pass both legislative bodies with a 66% vote? It failed to pass the House with this required % because of the 15 non-voting folks so there's no real way it can become a Law, is there? Please correct my US government "how-it-works"-fu if I'm mistaken.

    --
    DaveyJJ
    1. Re:Now I'm one of those socialist Canucks, but ... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 1

      No it'll only needs over 50%. 2/3rds majority is needed to overturn a veto.

    2. Re:Now I'm one of those socialist Canucks, but ... by DaveyJJ · · Score: 1

      Thank you for clarifying good sir. Or madam. Or cat.

      --
      DaveyJJ
    3. Re:Now I'm one of those socialist Canucks, but ... by Nidi62 · · Score: 1

      2/3s majority is only necessary for a Constitutional Amendment. A law just needs a simple majority. It can still be vetoed by Obama, but then Congress can again vote to override the veto if they so desire, although that is rarely done.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  60. RP doesn't like neo-nazis by Burz · · Score: 1

    but he keeps meeting with them. Maybe that's where he was during the vote.

    1. Re:RP doesn't like neo-nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I followed a link chain from the one you provided, which in a few clicks led here. Members of the board that was hacked are saying that the allegations of phone calls aren't true.

      In addition, there is some evidence that the hack itself was not an "official" part of Anonymous' Blitzkrieg initiative. It's quite likely that the whole point of the hack was another attempt to discredit Ron Paul by painting him as a racist.

  61. Re:Well all I can say is I'm happy to live in Euro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apparently you're misinformed...

    Half the laws we pass will be pushed your way soon enough (and your government will oblige), the other half we got from you to begin with.

  62. Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to put all my money in a VPN company or buy shares in the stock market.

  63. If it is his brand of liberty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps I'd rather not.

    1. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by cpu6502 · · Score: 2

      You prefer the Obama or Romney brand of liberty? While I may not agree with everything Paul says, he's still the best voice in Congress for liberty and the Bill of Rights. I agree with him on 99%.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by iphinome · · Score: 4, Informative

      He wants to outlaw abortion. That's not being for liberty.

    3. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the baby would disagree with you if he/she was allowed to be born.

    4. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if a baby or a fetus could logically disagree with someone on politics, then yeah, abortion would be wrong.

      show me a baby that can make a cogent political point and i'll change my mind on abortion right now.

    5. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..., he's still the best voice in Congress for liberty and the Bill of Rights. I agree with him on 99%.

      Which, I guess, in turn explains your frothy ranting this morning. Carry on then.

    6. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by almitydave · · Score: 1

      It is for the unborn.

      --
      my, your, his/her/its, our, your, their
      I'm, you're, he's/she's/it's, we're, you're, they're
    7. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Fjandr · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, though he wants to outlaw abortion personally he also is against the Federal government having the power to make it illegal.

      Like it or not (and I am pro-choice), that is in line with the Constitution and the way our governments (state and federal) are constituted. Yes, it's a step backward for a certain type of progress, but that progress has been made in a way which has compromised the integrity of the system by ignoring certain things which should have been done to change it. Ignoring those requirements has also lead to many other things which are harmful to the continued liberty of the people. Ignoring important things for the sake of expediency will ultimately end the US as a recognizable system of government.

    8. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      He's not big on gay rights either. Liberty!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    9. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by rohan972 · · Score: 1

      For being prepared to give up getting your way for the sake of legitimate government, I commend you.

    10. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sir, have bought hook line and sinker into the Ron Paul lie.

      Google "articles of Confederacy" to see why people like Ron Paul were left out of the creation of this nation.

    11. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by FreshlyShornBalls · · Score: 1

      I would guess the unborn child / fetus / growth would find not being murdered / killed / removed somewhat liberating. I don't think it's fair to state his pro-life stance (whether you agree with it or not) is anti-liberty.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank.
    12. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Ledgem · · Score: 1

      How did this get modded informative? Ron Paul has stated many times that he is anti-abortion, BUT he believes that it should be up to the individual states to decide whether they want to allow it or not for themselves. That's about as close to "let the people decide" as you can get. I'm sure many of us here wish that he said "abortion should be legal all over the country" but 'here's my personal view, I don't believe I've been granted a mandate to force it on everyone' is pretty damn good for a politician (or a person in any leadership position) to have.

    13. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawman.

      Liberty cannot exist without govt protection of personal and property rights. If you believe the unborn are persons, then protecting them is supporting liberty. If you believe they are right-less lumps of organic matter, then protecting them is undermining liberty.

      Guess which Ron Paul believes? Which means, that he is quite consistent in supporting liberty. He just happens to not share your beliefs about the personhood of the unborn.

    14. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      He's against the EPA, which means he's for Monsanto to have the freedom to ruin MY air. No thanks; as the libbies say, your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins -- and the same goes for your freedom to spoil my air. The feds need to be involved because pollution doesn't respect state lines and all pollution is a result of commerce.

      There are things you should not be free to do, including polluting the air and water. I grew up near a Monsanto before the Clean Air Act, and you literally could not drive past with the windows down, the air burned your lungs. As long as Paul is aganst the EPA I'm against Paul. To be against the EPA is close to proof that one is in corporate industry's pockets, which is why I suspect was the real reason he didn't vote on this bill.

    15. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not liberty, it's murder.

    16. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The argument there is that the unborn should also have some rights. There is truth in that I think.

  64. Time for a new internet for the rest of the world by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    People from US are screwed anyway, but at least they voted the current government. But the rest of the world don't deserve being stripped from privacy for stupid US laws. Out of US backbones, social networks not owned by US companies, local providers for mail servers, by default hard encrypted traffic and so on. Internet was a nice dream, and is turning into a nightmare. Staying in things like they are is like keep living close from Chernobyl or Fukushima shortly after their accidents.

  65. Re:First (who cares) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Emmanuel Goldstein

  66. Good. by msobkow · · Score: 1

    Despite the paniced bleatings, I firmly believe that companies should not be subject to lawsuits for co-operating with police or reporting people who are abusing their systems to perform illegal activities.

    Is the legislation subject to abuse? Sure it is -- just about any legislation with any teeth is subject to abuse. Take, for example, false reportings of child abuse to CPS, or kids claiming teachers "sexually harassed" them.

    Reporting abuse isn't a charge; it's only grounds for a warrant to do further investigation. I don't believe the legislation goes much beyond providing whistle-blower protection for companies reporting the abuse. And I can't think of any way the legislation could have been written to provide that protection from lawsuits without causing fear and panic amongst rabid privacy advocates.

    There's a huge difference between companies voluntarily reporting abuses of their systems and the government mandating that they monitor and track their customers and users, and the latter is not what this legislation does.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:Good. by n3r0.m4dski11z · · Score: 1

      "Despite the paniced bleatings, I firmly believe that companies should not be subject to lawsuits for co-operating with police or reporting people who are abusing their systems to perform illegal activities. "

      Wow way to miss the point there! If they don't have a court order, then why the hell do you assume that their actions will be limited to "activities determined to be illegal". You do know the *purpose* behind a court order, dont you?

      --
      -
    2. Re:Good. by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Look, if a store catches a shoplifter, they call the police. They can't be sued for calling the police.

      If a bank has a robbery, they call the police. They can't be sued for doing so.

      Why in any sane world should ISPs and online providers be subject to lawsuits for doing the same damn thing? And that's the main intent of this legislation as I read it. Now I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm not "reading it right", but then again, nor are most politicians, much less slashdotters.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    3. Re:Good. by iphinome · · Score: 1

      Those are cases when banks and stores are victims of crimes. Not cases of banks and stores spying on customers and reporting then to the police because they told a friend they planned to buy some drugs or download copyrighted porn.

    4. Re:Good. by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      If the laws themselves aren't just and no one wants to pay attention to them, then is it still ok for the store to call the police?

      For instance, let's say the law does not allow you to pick up milk with your left hand. You think that's fucking ridiculous, so does everyone else. It's clear that the Right Hand Lobby who sells Right-Handed (patented) rings, jewelry, and fitness equipment is just out to profit by getting this law passed through government.
      No one pays attention, so the Right Handed Corporation pays MORE money to the government to get Hand Tracking installed in every single store in the united states,

      Is that right and just? Or just corporate/police state greed/power trip because they KNOW that not everyone will pick up milk with only their right hand?

      --
      -
    5. Re:Good. by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Here are your shiny black boots.

      Here is your nice brown shirt.

      Now do the world a favour and off yourself, so that we don't have to waste money on a tribunal when the day of reckoning for all you authoritarian toadies comes.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
  67. No, he didn't by Nidi62 · · Score: 3, Informative

    No Vote R Paul, Ronald “Ron” TX 14th

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2012/h192

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    1. Re:No, he didn't by englishknnigits · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. I misinterpreted all of the "I am adamantly against it" statements to mean he was voting, and did vote, against it. I am interested to find out if he abstained because he couldn't make the vote due to them having it a day early or if he changed his mind somewhat on it. I am guessing the former...but we see where my first assumption got me :P I wish Slashdot had an append feature where you could make a one time comment within your own comment for corrections.

    2. Re:No, he didn't by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ron Paul was campaigning (speaking to thousands which will have an affect unlike his one vote today). If you're guessing he would change his mind after making adament statements AGAINST CISPA, then you don't know Ron Paul very well. Maybe you meant "latter".

    3. Re:No, he didn't by iphinome · · Score: 1

      Speaking to thousands instead of representing the hundreds of thousands of people in his district.

    4. Re:No, he didn't by jmerlin · · Score: 1

      The vote date was changed without notification. It's hard to show up to vote when you're out campaigning and someone proposes moving the vote date up by a day and a majority of those present agree. You can say that all you want, but barring the ability to vote remotely with a last-minute notice, it's not a choice he made.

    5. Re:No, he didn't by randyleepublic · · Score: 1

      The first part of your signature is malarky. The big fail in the US for the last hundred years or so has been the government failing to govern those aspects of our commercial life where the free market does a lousy job, i.e. energy production, health care, telecommunications, circulation of money to name a few. Of course that does not mean that our government has not been involved in a bunch of stuff that they shouldn't be involved in, but that fact does not make your thesis true.

      --
      Social Credit would solve everything...
  68. Maybe time to go by avm · · Score: 1

    My family emigrated here a few hundred years ago. Perhaps we've overstayed and it is time to pull up roots and move along. Vote with our feet, like great granddad.

  69. US cloud and .com hosts..... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Many people will be looking twice at their hosting needs, local privacy laws and new US telco laws.
    The only thing the US can still offer is the word "unlimited" on cheap shared best effort servers deals.
    http://www.smh.com.au/it-pro/cloud/what-will-you-do-when-the-us-comes-for-you-20120125-1qhc1.html
    http://www.dsd.gov.au/infosec/cloud/cloud01.htm

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  70. dark days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's always darkest before the dawn.

  71. Taxes by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that the information that the IRS collects on me is far more worrisome than what is implicit in this information.

    The difference is safeguards, which are missing here.

  72. Anonymizer stock by El+Rey · · Score: 1

    I knew I should have bought stock in Anonymizer yesterday...

  73. Foreigners? by dutchwhizzman · · Score: 1

    Does this apply to all USA data keepers, so foreign customers that make use of these systems as well? This could (probably would) mean that most of the European businesses that use services from USA companies are now forced to cancel their business, due to European privacy laws forbidding them to do business with companies that will not uphold the European privacy laws. Could someone explain if I need to move large amounts of data and services out of the USA now please?

    --
    I was promised a flying car. Where is my flying car?
    1. Re:Foreigners? by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "Could someone explain if I need to move large amounts of data and services out of the USA now please?"

      Yes, you do. Explain to the powers that be why you're doing it, too, which could help defeat the Senate's bill (in the US, both houses of Congress must approve bills before they go to the president for veto or passage).

  74. Re:So why isn't this getting the negative attentio by soilheart · · Score: 1

    One reason could be that it mostly affect US citizens. SOPA would have affected everyone who had access to the internet (at least .com-adresses).

  75. No you won't, shut the fuck up by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 0

    I get really tired of seeing the whiners online talk about armed revolution because not a single one of you has any intention of doing it. You just whine online, and never actually bother to contact your elected representatives.

    So shut up, you aren't going to shoot anyone. You are just going to keep whining on the Internet, which is all you ever do.

  76. He's not by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    I've never seen any of the "I'm gonna leave the country," types who've ever done any real planning. They tend to have this simplistic world view of "the bad US" and "everyone else". Basically they figure that since (in their view) everyone else doesn't like the US and they don't like the US, they'll be welcomed with open arms wherever they go. Some even really seem to think the US has the harshest immigration law and is the only country that doesn't freely welcome people. They never look in to what is actually involved.

    1. Re:He's not by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Do a search. I've read of at least a few on slashdot who say they've made the move and are much happier. Of course, this is given the right set of skills, but it's a start.

      Also, I agree with you. Many of us might not make the move. However, with a girlfriend graduating from one of the most prestigious medical programs in the nation, and my about to nab letters in the financial profession and my background in technology and programming, I would think we can find somewhere to go if it comes down to it.

      But yeah, at this point it's all hot air. We have at least 2 years to decide before she's out, and can I really bring myself to leave my practice and the clients whose financial well-being I care about behind? I don't know.

      --
      -
  77. Just so that you know by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 1

    The NSA is not only allowed but EXPECTED to spy on foreign assets. You know that, right? If they wanted to sniff around at your server's traffic it would be much easier if those servers were foreign. No sticky legal situations there, the NSA has been allowed to gather foreign intelligence since, well, its creation and it is a rather uncontroversial position (just saying it is, not if it should be).

    Not saying don't move your servers if you've other reasons, just saying if the reason is "Oh the US might spy on me," that's a rather silly reason. They can do that easier when you stuff is outside the US.

  78. Boo! by Raved+Thrad · · Score: 1

    Boo! Rubbish! Filth! Slime! Muck! Boo!

    --
    Life, ultimately, boils down to the Four Fs: Fighting, Fleeing, Feeding, and Mating.
  79. ^^ VIOLENCE TROLL ^^ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I doubt that you're even a real person. You're just some political robot troll hack encouraging violence. Or at least that's what you sound like, so I hope you're getting paid. This is truly and unfortunately the age of trolls. Tea party and Occupy were both maligned in press by paid trolls (or disinformational astroturfing or whatever you'd call it), tho the left-right division is so deeply ingrained that few see it is the Washington establishment (GOP and Dems) that constantly works against all normal people.

  80. Exporting is the test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now 'think of the children', 'war on drugs', 'war on terror' have effectively been united into one Orwellian excuse to spy on every computer in the country. This is something even uber Nazi Heinrich Himmler couldn't dream of.

    The real test: Will the rest of the planet allow the USA to rape their sovereignty over this law?

    The USA has been pushing the idea that the internet is theirs, so every country best obey their cyber-laws. Most industrialised countries have laws against the sharing of data. To enact CISPA, via the subservience which most governments happily provide to the USA, very under-handed deals must be formed.

    1. Re:Exporting is the test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will the rest of the planet allow the USA to rape their sovereignty over this law?

      Not a chance. It simply amplifies the already growing pushback against the violation of basic Human Rights the US is increasingly involved in. I don't quite know why US politicians are so keen to eradicate the last bit of trust the US enjoys globally, but I must admit they are doing a blindingly good job of it..

      Personally, it saddens me. There is so much good that the US can do, but instead it increasingly behaves like a bully in a playground where every other kid is now leaning martial arts. This cannot end well, but somehow it seems impossible to change MO..

  81. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New survivor is coming back on /sarcasm

    Why aren't you on the street with a megaphone? Shit, why aren't we all...

  82. Re:Mod please +5 paper bag over head by moeinvt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Since 2000, we've seen the Patriot Act, Military Commissions Act, Warrantless Wiretapping, telecom immunity for the aforementioned, indefinite detention(and now assassination!) of U.S. citizens without charge or trial, NDAA ... and this relentless effort to legalize internet espionage.

    Furthermore, it's no secret that the NSA is building a huge new data center in Utah.

    http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1

    This stuff isn't in the realm of "conspiracy theories" nor exclusive to wearers of tinfoil hats.

  83. as we sleep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The tree of democracy at times must be watered with the blood of patriots and tyrants " - a founding father

    Perhaps its time to prove we are still a free thinking society and stop being the controlled sheep that we have become to corporate government.

    ()-()

  84. the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    • When our land is illumined with liberty's smile,
    • If a foe from within strikes a blow at her glory,
    • Down, down with the traitor that tries to defile
    • The flag of the stars, and the page of her story!
    • By the millions unchained,
    • Who their birthright have gained
    • We will keep her bright blazon forever unstained;
    • And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave,
    • While the land of the free is the home of the brave.

    Can only be spoke by an Anonymous Coward, lest I be called a Terrorist.

    Ratiocinate freedom, a emaciation men try, that is the irony.

  85. Not Acceptable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since Obama declared the war on terror to be over, there is no need for CISPA, or Patriot Act, or ACTA, or the other crap passed for the "War on terror".

  86. Some similarity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lets all get together in an insulated community of people who think like us, where those who disagree are a tiny, tiny minority. Let's trumpet the correctness of our ideas, and insult other people, knowing that our own ideas will be affirmed by everyone here and that no one truly studied enough in the opposite viewpoint will be likely enough to be here to point out that we're not completely correct! Then we'll feel good about how smart/right we are, and how others are idiots.

    Sounds like a church to me.

    Also sounds like this thread.

  87. Do you know who your Rep is or how they voted? by dean.collins · · Score: 1

    When are these people going to realise they work for us AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

    Want to know how your vote was place? then search for your representative - http://www.house.gov/representatives (by zip code in top right) and then see how they voted on this critical law;
    - http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml


    http://velazquez.house.gov/ (mine for brooklyn) voted No
    http://clarke.house.gov/ New York 11 also voted no

    ....however Edolphus Towns of NY district 10 voted yes!!??? WTF???
    http://towns.house.gov/


    If you are in his district i suggest you contact him to let him no that this didn't go un noticed

    Hours of Operation
    Office Hours: 9:00 AM – 5:00 PM (Constituent Services by appointment – 10:00 AM – 3:00 PM)

    Address
    10408 Flatlands Avenue
    Brooklyn, NY 11236
    Phone: (718) 272-1175
    Fax: (718) 272-1178

  88. CISPA by Sasha-Whitefur · · Score: 1

    The Republithugs, strike again.

  89. From Bad to Worse... by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    Just another reason not to use US companies or store data in the US for any IT projects.

    Patriot Act was bad enough, but at least it had the decency of being somewhat sneaky about it. This seems like it is just saying to the world, "Hey guess what? We are going to look at everything you have, and you know what? Too bad!"

    The US is doing a great job moving all those IT jobs someplace else, well done.

    Canada is really close by the way, we have awesome privacy laws, and it isn't all that cold by the border, we speak English, have a highly educated workforce, and now our dollar is probably worth more than the US... Oh our Corporate tax is also lower... Oh and free health care, so no need for expensive health care plans for employees. I would suggest you move all your IT related work north of the border.

    You may have to put up with a few "ehs" and hockey playoffs, but its probably worth it in the long run.

  90. Fovworthy in the 21st century by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

    You might be a criminal if:
    you use the internet.

    You might be a criminal if:
    you want to get on a plane

    You might be a criminal if:
    you post bird songs on you tube.

    You might be a criminal if:
    You build a better widget than a big corp and try to sell it.

    You might be a criminal if:
    you take photos of police officers.


    Feel free to add your own.

    1. Re:Fovworthy in the 21st century by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 1

      Correction: FOXWORTHY!

  91. Re:Time to find a foreign VPS for my openvpn serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I currently have a VPS that I use as a VPN server for my mobile devices and laptop when I am on travel and redirect all of my traffic through. I do this mainly to keep Verizon and ATT (specifically ATT when I tether) grubby little mitts of my data.

    So you're transferring your data over their network via your VPN to avoid using their network to transfer your data.

    I think you have a A-not-B error, there.

  92. Re:So now what? THE LAY OF THE POL LANDSCAPE by reformacion · · Score: 0

    Indeedy, we have a big task now to mount the awareness and outrage against this, as "the little people" because this time we ain't got the big Google lobbying against it as with SOPA. Please at least pretend to believe Obama that he might veto it, but in a stern note let him know that you have every intention of holding him to it! An original observation I have made: being homeless, I go long spells with nothing but broadcast radio to consume, and I've long analyzed the make-up of the Hourly News Headlines. This absolute visceration of the 4th Amendment has been deemed utterly not worthy of mention, and the now familiar pattern accompanies this: a whole swathe of jive-ass, arbitrarily-timeable events suddenly fill the headline slots right when such a disgusting process gets rushed through: pronouncements from government departments on this and that, cheeseball campaign directions announced just today, judges in disparate places making statements on decisions that they could've made "any time now", etc. etc.. What really peeved me was the loathesome "Osgood File" which I happened to catch on CBS.. and it started out sounding like it might be the sole mention on MSM, if I only were to wait through the commercial they put in the middle of the 3-minute or so "report".. basically turned out to be simply propagandizing the digitally-challenged masses to think we're damned well under new increased cybersecurity threats, like never before! Stated that hey, we well may have succeeded in hitting Iran's nuke devices with stuxnet, so surely they're going to attack us now! And guess what, they're really dumb but Osgood is here to give us the news: gosh, they can just go *buy* these capabilities.. as if botnets were invented yesterday and we need a brand new anti-anonymity push and deep-packet inspection regime *quick*, right damn now, because any minute now these new-fangled weapons will be upon us! Truly nauseating, the degree to which the masses' minds are now manipulated. I want to link to my earlier posting, for which I apologize for the degree to which it sucks as far as being witty/concise slashdot fare, but bear with me as I type 75wpm and am not good at boiling things down. Important links though, and you may have missed it: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?cid=39812889

    --
    eschew crap, proprietary jive such as Adobe Flash and "Warcraft"! Eschew war, for that matter.
  93. Re Paul: Enough greed already, go Jill Stein by reformacion · · Score: 0

    from https://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/08/27-1 ... He also said this: "[T]he forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty." Ron Paul also occasionally appears at events sponsored by the John Birch Society, the segregationist right-wing organization that is closely aligned with the Christian Reconstructionist wing of the religious right. ... there's much more there to mull over, i.e. the wackjob writings that were printed in the publications he published (Though yes, in a show of unelectability, he admits "I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.... I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.") Libertarians have some great points, kids.. yes, check out Alex Jones' 4-hours-daily radio show because he's great on the 4th & 1st Amendments, but do call in and bring up the fact that he's brainwashed as re climate change. http://xml.infowars.com/Alex.rss

    --
    eschew crap, proprietary jive such as Adobe Flash and "Warcraft"! Eschew war, for that matter.
  94. Blogger "a recent high school grad" by Burz · · Score: 1

    says "Attacks like this one aren't typical of Anonymous". He is rationalizing his disbelief.

    The hacked site actually is typical of an Anonymous target... like that website trafficking in underage girls. Anonymous also go after individuals. One thing that isn't typical of Anonymous, however, is fabricating lies.

    Ron Paul has stated himself that he accepts the support of groups like 'stormfront' although claiming to disagree with them. He has also posed for a picture with them on at least one occasion.

  95. Right by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Just like he said he would veto NDAA....right before he turned around and signed it into law anyway--AFTER adding a provision which made it 10x worse--just like a bitch on New Years Day, when everyone's attention was distracted elsewhere.

    You seriously are naive enough to still believe a word that comes out of that lying sack of shit's mouth?

  96. The only delusional one is you. by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Stop getting your "knowledge" from the mainstream media. TV really is warping your mind.

  97. sigh by shiftless · · Score: 1

    And don't give me that crap about "look it up yourself". You wouldn't tell your college professor to just "look it up yourself" if they started questioning where you came up with some outlandish claims in a research paper.

    If I had spent hours upon hours and hours studying the matter, and having personal experience in the matter, and thus coming to an "outlandish" conclusion....and a professor choose to ignore my findings and argue til he's blue in the face out of his own inability to understand.....then yes, I would probably just shrug my shoulders, turn around, and walk off.

    There comes a point in every human being's life when you have to start working for your own benefit, and the benefit of those who also "get it" and are going in the same direction, and quit burning every calorie of energy you possess in trying to convince morons who can't, won't, and never will get it, and will go to their dying days in old age never getting it and yelling at kids on the lawn who do.

    1. Re:sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and a professor choose to ignore my findings and argue til he's blue in the face out of his own inability to understand....

      That's funny, that you think the professor would "argue til he's blue in the face" rather than simply give you an F and move on. He's the professor, why should he waste time arguing against an arrogant student who cannot be bothered to cite their work? If you make a claim, you back it up, it's as simple as that.

      Let me try something else. I claim that there is an invisible pink unicorn roaming around our solar system. By your own logic, you are saying that it is your responsibility to prove me wrong, rather than my responsibility to back up my claim.

  98. Back at ya by shiftless · · Score: 1

    I dunno....why did you post as Anon? Shame?

  99. Troll alert by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Wow, the media assholes are trolling slashdot too? Do us all a favor--sign in and drop the pretentious non-sequiturs. Ron Paul IS winning.....and those in the know are laughing, because we know days are numbered for rats like you :)

  100. Nice ad hominem there, chief by shiftless · · Score: 1

    Why do you apply rational thinking towards the actions of people you like (Ron Paul) and not those you hate (Barack Obama)? Can you even really call it rational thinking, if you selectively apply it like that?

    I don't know. Since you're the expert on hypocrisy, why don't you tell us if the message should be judged by the man, or by its own merit?

  101. I don't get it by shiftless · · Score: 1

    You really need to get over your Ron Paul man crush.

    Why are you so afraid of Ron Paul?

    If you're not, why do you (and the millions of clones of you out there) feel the need to attack this man every time he's mentioned?

  102. route around the damaged part by jjbarrows · · Score: 1

    Good.
    Now that all the speculation is over, can we accept that the USA is broken and just route all internet traffic around it? Surely the rest of the infrastructure is grown up enough to do without the rotting corpse that may have started the internet but is now too foobar.