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."

115 of 616 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    3. 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..."
    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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..."
    8. 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"
    9. 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.

    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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?"
    13. 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"
    14. 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.

    15. 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
    16. 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
    17. 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.
    18. 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.
  2. 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 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.

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

      Just like income taxes are 'voluntary'...

    4. 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.

    5. 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
    6. 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
  3. 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 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"
  4. "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 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?

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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
    7. Re:"Not voting" by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    8. 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.

    9. 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"
    10. 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)
    11. 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.

    12. 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"
    13. 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"
    14. 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?

    15. 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?

    16. 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
    17. 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.

    18. 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?

  5. 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 Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obama has issued a veto threat.

  6. 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 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. 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.
  8. 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 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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?

  9. 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.

  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

      --
      -
  13. 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
  14. 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

  15. 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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.

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

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

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
  19. 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 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?
  20. 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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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 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".

    8. Re:Sad Little People by Beeftopia · · Score: 2

      Our political system is Kang vs. Kodos.

    9. 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=-
    10. 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"
    11. Re:Sad Little People by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 4, Funny

      Now you have done it. Here comes the feds!

    12. 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
    13. Re:Sad Little People by Githaron · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      Actually, that creates problems.

    14. 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
    15. 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.

    16. 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.
  23. 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
  24. 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 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"
    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

    7. 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...

    8. 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.

  25. 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
  26. 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.

  27. 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
  28. 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"
  29. 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
  30. Re:Treason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Excellent argument. Thank you for your input.

  31. 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
  32. 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.
  33. Re:If it is his brand of liberty. by iphinome · · Score: 4, Informative

    He wants to outlaw abortion. That's not being for liberty.

  34. 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.