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."

Comments

First

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

George Orwell

Re:First

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"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

Re:First

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:First

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:First

[shoehornjob]

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.

Re:First

[Ded Bob]

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

Re:Treason

[fnj]

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

Re:Treason

[Beardo the Bearded]

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.

Re:Yes, I will tell you that

[Daniel Dvorkin]

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?

Well....

[Dripdry]

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.

Re:"Not voting"

[shiftless]

[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?

Re:"Not voting"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:House of Representatives

[Imrik]

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

Re:wtf is "internet threat information"?

[sjames]

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

Republican Driven Legislation

[tyrione]

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****.

Sad Little People

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

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...

Re:Sad Little People

[reboot246]

Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

Re:Sad Little People

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Sad Little People

[Githaron]

Bullets in the heads of corrupt politicians solve even more problems.

Actually, that creates problems.

Re:Sad Little People

[TheRaven64]

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...'

Re:"Not voting"

[SeaFox]

[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.

Re:No they don't.

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

"If we overthrew the government, we couldn't watch The Voice anymore."

Re:"Not voting"

[cpu6502]

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.

Re:Yes, I will tell you that

[The Master Control P]

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.

Re:"Not voting"

[artor3]

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?

Re:No they don't.

[Jstlook]

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.