Slashdot Mirror
Cybersecurity Bill Fails Today In US Senate
wiredmikey writes "A development following the recently posted story Senate Cybersecurity Bill Stalled By Ridiculous Amendments — The Cybersecurity Act of 2012 failed to advance in the US Senate on Thursday. The measure was blocked amid opposition from an unusual coalition of civil libertarians — who feared it could allow too much government snooping — and conservatives who said it would create a new bureaucracy. The bill needed 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to advance under rules in the chamber, but got only 52. The failure came despite pleas from Obama and top US defense officials. The US Chamber of Commerce argued that the bill 'could actually impede US cybersecurity by shifting businesses' resources away from implementing robust and effective security measures and toward meeting government mandates.'"
on this issue... http://politics.slashdot.org/story/12/08/02/1437240/senate-cybersecurity-bill-stalled-by-ridiculous-amendments I mean its still on the front page even.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
it had horrible anti-tons of shit tacked onto it targeting tons of shit. It's not like the gun provision alone is what made or broke it. I'm not sad to see it die at any rate.
I got here through a series of tubes
I'm so very very very very sick of our govt doing their damnedest to turn us into a police state.
This law like so many others is just a pathetic attempt to force ridiculous and unnecessary controls on us while giving the govt the ability to do anything they wish.
I truly wish someone knew how to wake up the majority people who live in this country, because this sort of nonsense needs to come to an abrupt halt.
How would one do that? And before you say "you can't have two bullet points in one bill", what about bills that provide a service and a tax to pay for it. Should they be separate? Should there be a vote on each service individually?
It had ATTEMPTS to get horrible anti-gun measures slipped in, along with a metric fuckton of other absurd amendments. I don't believe any of them were actually passed and added on to the bill though. Big difference.
If you think conservatives are civil libertarians then I have no idea what to say to you.
Today's conservatives believe for absolute freedom of corporations that that's it. They have absolutely no care for any other freedoms save MAYBE the 2nd amendment. They don't care about any individuals rights... just whatever gets their corporate buddies a bit more money.
Just keep the government out of the way and the companies themselves will take care of it. No need for worries.
Yes!
We should have let:
Enron take over energy policy,
Madoff take over social security,
Lehman Brothers take over mortgages,
and so on
The free market is perfect and always optimizes (someone's wallet).
Disallow adding random irrelevant shit to the bill. Anything irrelevant to the original bill, actually.
They care about more than just corporations. They also care about things like banning free speech to "fight terrorism" and banning abortions to "protect a right to life" while encouraging an increasing number of deaths at the hands of our police and military...
Conservatives? You need to get specific, as currently the Republican party lays claim to that term and they are ANYTHING but "civil libertarians."
Hilarious. The diversity of opinions in the Democratic party is one of the reasons they've had a hard time pushing past Republican stonewalling. If you want lock-step voting, look at the Republican party.
You will not see this from anyone currently in DC.
Again, define "conservative." The most "conservative" candidates today seem to be religious fundamentalists who are all too happy to cater to corporate interests.
They at least "say" that, but then do so by attacking useful bits of the government in favor of the corporations stuffing money in their pockets.
Enron take over energy policy,
You assume we need one, big, monolithic "energy policy." As though a single entity could create an effective policy of that magnitude and complexity.
Madoff take over social security,
Well, it *is* a Ponzi scheme to begin with:
Where do social security surpluses go? To buy treasury bonds :)
Who gets the money from the sale of treasury bonds? The federal government
What does the federal government do with that money? Spend it
When the social security administration cashes in those bonds, who has to pay them? The federal government
Where is the federal government going to get the money to reimburse social security? Good question, any guesses?
The free market is perfect and always optimizes (someone's wallet).
The free market is not perfect, but if a good or service is poor allows for alternatives that might be better. When the government has a monopoly on something, there ARE no alternatives. You better hope it's run damn well, because with a bureaucracy that large, you aren't going to change it.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
The idea that those who believe in small and limited government actually think there should be no government is a common and worn out liberal straw-man argument.
FTFY.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If you think conservatives are civil libertarians then I have no idea what to say to you.
Today's conservatives believe for absolute freedom of corporations that that's it. They have absolutely no care for any other freedoms save MAYBE the 2nd amendment. They don't care about any individuals rights... just whatever gets their corporate buddies a bit more money.
No; those are called Neo-Cons , and in no way does their liberal bullshit reflect upon those of us who truly fit the classic definition of a political conservative.
Fuckers hi-jacked our label...
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
You're half right. The correct solution for cybersecurity is pretty much the same as everything else: let businesses manage their own security, but provide harsh penalties for companies that fail to protect the privacy of their customers' information. For example, if a company's failed security causes your SSN to become available to somebody else, they have to pay someone to provide credit protection services for you for the rest of your life. If a company leaks other types of information that could be used for identity theft, it's a fine of $1000 per account per incident, payable to an account that helps people who are the victims of identity theft as a result. And so on. Then, get the government out of the way, and let the companies find ways to keep from losing their shirts.
Another useful thing the government could do is to expand its program of reviewing open source code (and, ideally, closed source code) for security vulnerabilities. If the systems are secure in the first place, then none of the stupid surveillance crap they're trying to ram down our throats would be useful. The only reason it is even ostensibly useful is that the quality of most code out there ranges from bad to worse....
What the government should not do is use this as an excuse to become more of a nanny state, to require specific security policies, require specific password schemes, require specific... well, pretty much anything. As soon as you do that, you create a homogeneous attack surface in which everybody is equally unprepared for new types of attacks, in which every password is probably shared across every website (because they all have the same standards), etc. Better to have the bad guys regularly demonstrating the flaws of a few weak systems than suddenly demonstrating flaws across every website because they all were forced to use some standardized, government-designed software system. At least if there are choices, people with common sense can lean towards working with companies that do things the right way.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Well, it *is* a Ponzi scheme to begin with:
Nice to see you don't know how a Ponzi Scheme works.
Their are 5 steps to it and if you skip one it's not a Ponzi Scheme, but the critical part is Initial Investors Are Paid Off. This is where it falls apart. Not every Initial Investor actually gets Paid off. Not everyone has eligible survivors and not everyone lives long enough to collect. That's the critical part to the entire thing.
The system only fails when you have too few workers to support the retired population. So because of Declining Birth Rates like Japan, or because of increased life expectancy like most of the world. Which is eventually a problem, and the Social Security Surplus should never have been put into the General Fund, but that money can only delay a collapse due to the other two issues. If the other issues don't come up then the surplus is never used.
FTFY
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
The idea that those who believe in small and limited government actually think is common
FTFY
hmm, that might be clever, if not so childish and pedantic.
So, what's wrong with preferring small, limited-scope government, as opposed to the ever-expanding, expensive, bloated oppression machine we have now?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The bill needed 60 votes in the 100-member Senate to advance under rules in the chamber, but got only 52.
That is one of those technically true but exceptionally misleading statements.
Senate bills normally only require a majority vote to pass. But what started in the 80s and has increased markedly since the last presidential election is the abuse of the filibuster. Nowadays a bill can pass in the senate with only a majority vote if the minority party - the GOP - supports it. But if the GOP leadership is opposed to it, they filibuster it such that 60 votes are required, which is generally impossible because of the intense partisanship. So despite the senate being slightly majority democrat, they only tend to pass things that are favored by the GOP.
What's worse is that it doesn't take an actual filibuster, only the threat of one. And even when an actual filibuster is invoked, it doesn't require that the senators stand on the floor and engage in ongoing debate or speechifying like the way us non-politicians would expect.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Today's conservatives believe for absolute freedom of corporations that that's it.
You're only slightly correct. There are some conservatives who act that way - and they tend to get the most funding and get elected. This is one of the reasons the tea-parties formed. The rank-and-file was sick and tired of sending politicians to Washington based on their promises to cut spending, only to have those politicians betray them.
So what happened, the media made every effort to discredit the tea-partiers, calling them names and making unreasonable accusations of racism. Was this because the media tend to be left-wing, or because the media is owned by corporations? I don't know, but either way the effects weren't pretty.
The rank-and-file conservatives are trying to get control of the party from the corporate sponsors. This is what separates them from the liberals. Liberals want their party to make the government and corporations one entity (oh you think you don't? the sad fact is the more power you give government, the more effort the industrialists will put into controlling that government, and they will succeed).
It isn't easy shrinking the government and wresting control from the corporations, but it would be nice if people who claim to be on our side would help us instead of constantly seeking to discredit us.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
Are they not true Scotsmen as well?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Conservatives? You need to get specific, as currently the Republican party lays claim to that term and they are ANYTHING but "civil libertarians."
Tea-party conservatives, specifically. There would be a lot more people saying they support the tea-parties if the media hadn't worked so hard to portray the tea-parties as things they are not (like racist).
Hilarious. The diversity of opinions in the Democratic party is one of the reasons they've had a hard time pushing past Republican stonewalling. If you want lock-step voting, look at the Republican party.
You've been watching too much liberal news, where Republican teamwork is always called "marching in lockstep" and Democratic teamwork is called "unity". It of course confuses you when you see Democratic teamwork called "marching in lockstep".
You will not see this from anyone currently in DC.
Ron Paul was a Republican. Rand Paul, I'm not sure if he is as strict as his father, is also a Republican. But you're right that there are very few elected in either party who stand by their claims to want limited government. This is why after 8 years of disappointment from GWB and the Republicans, the tea-party formed. We always knew the Democrats opposed freedom, but the Republicans betrayed us it was clear a new movement was needed.
Again, define "conservative." The most "conservative" candidates today seem to be religious fundamentalists who are all too happy to cater to corporate interests.
Religious fundamentalists tend to be the most pro-freedom these days because their freedoms are increasingly threatened (e.g. the HHS mandate). But there certainly are politicians who are religious fundamentalists and willing to cater to corporate interests on both sides (though the liberals will claim their religious beliefs aren't really religious)
They at least "say" that, but then do so by attacking useful bits of the government in favor of the corporations stuffing money in their pockets.
It's a problem. How about if we all vote for politicians who say they'll reduce government until they all have to start saying it? Then we can vote of the politicians who do the best job of following through.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
For one thing, nobody is actually in favor of "ever-expanding, expensive, bloated" government.
Well, not when you put it that way.
Social Security Surplus should never have been put into the General Fund
Well, sort of. it really should never have been collected in the first place. Instead, it should've just charged what was needed, and published the expected rates going forward 60 years out based on actuarial tables and the expected benefits.
The problem is that the surplus, having been collected, needs to go somewhere. You can't just stick it under a mattress - inflation would eat at its value, and it would also have a chilling effect on the economy. But you can't invest it, either, because that involves risk, and no one wants to be held accountable for a hundred million person's losses.
The only "safe" thing to do is invest in the instrument that defines the "risk-free" rate - treasury bonds - which are backed by the ability of the government to tax its citizens. The money wasn't "put into the general fund" per se, but it was used to incur an additional debt obligation on the part of the taxpayers, which is one big, "huh?"
Since SS is just a branch of the government anyway, and the premiums are also collected as taxes, that doesn't really accomplish anything except to keep some bean-counters busy making up numbers. Far better to just never have collected the surplus in the first place - the amount people pay in taxes would not change, as they would be paying less in "regular" taxes to match the "more" in SS taxes, but there would be no resources expended maintaining the fiction of a "lock box" and the bureaucracy involved in all the transactions in both directions.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
This is what is weird about American politics (disclaimer, I'm not American). You've managed to totally warp language.
Conservative basically means someone who wants to go back to the old days. The old days varies but is usually some imaginary time when things were perfect for their kind of people.
Progressive is the opposite, they want to go forward to some imaginary time where things are perfect for their type.
Liberal means freedom so by definition liberals want freedom, so are the opposite of authoritarian.
The right wing is the branch of government that supports the aristocracy, which usually means authoritarian as by their very nature the aristocracy wants to keep their station in life and will use authoritarian means to keep it.
The left wing is the branch of the government that represents the common person and often respond to authoritarianism with their own authoritarianism or being nice people get hijacked by authoritarianism types.
Personally I've always been anti-conservative as I've always believed in freedom, equality and keeping the government out of my life. Having watched the conservatives actual actions for 40 odd years I haven't seen any reason to change my mind even though they always do say the opposite of what they do.
You seem to have totally flipped the meanings of these words, claiming liberals want to unite business and government when as usual the right wing is full of business men (and women, yea for progress) who want to use government to further their business agenda and the left wing seems to have been banished sometime in the early 20th century so now you have 2 branches of the right arguing that they are actually for the people yet both act almost the same except for a little bit of lip service.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Personally, I'm happy as hell we don't get a tenth of the government we pay for.
And saying that, I'm all in favor of a smaller government. Put it on a diet, liposuction the shit outta it, and let's see how those poor bureaucrats do when they have to work for a living.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Their are 5 steps to it and if you skip one it's not a Ponzi Scheme, but the critical part is Initial Investors Are Paid Off. This is where it falls apart. Not every Initial Investor actually gets Paid off. Not everyone has eligible survivors and not everyone lives long enough to collect. That's the critical part to the entire thing.
I can't believe you seriously think that step didn't happen just because a small number didn't make it to the payoff.
"government-paid security pros"
ROTFL
You have got to be kidding. Even if you get a real security pro to work for the government, in 10 years, he/she will be totally out of date and heading an evergrowing empire of unqualified idiots. These bureaucrats will secure their jobs by getting out of the consulting business entirely and writing regulations that they can enforce.
Never start a new government program.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
The problem is that the surplus, having been collected, needs to go somewhere. You can't just stick it under a mattress - inflation would eat at its value, and it would also have a chilling effect on the economy. But you can't invest it, either, because that involves risk, and no one wants to be held accountable for a hundred million person's losses.
You absolutely could invest it. There are lots of *very* low risk, just-over-inflation investment instruments the government could take advantage of. Commercial paper, in particular, comes to mind. Municipal bonds are usually pretty stable, as well.
I think the underlying motivation of creating the surplus was just to create a back-door tax increase.
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Today's conservatives believe for absolute freedom of corporations that that's it.
Even if that were true, that's better than any other large bloc in Washington. For example, Obamacare didn't come about because someone cared about anyone's freedom.
the same masses who wonder why freshly deregulated companies will happily serve their cats melamine
Only if they're ignorant of the consequences:
A huge recall of contaminated pet food is likely to cost Canada's Menu Foods Income Fund MEW_u.TO at least C$45 million ($42 million), even without taking a slump in sales into account, the company said on Wednesday.
This for one business and is in addition to customer law suits and loss of sales.
who move their jobs overseas
We ignore here that all those wonderfully expensive social programs and burdensome labor regulations make us very expensive to hire, especially when the competition is a small fraction of our cost. But somehow this little thing is the fault of tea partiers rather than the people who created the situation with Free Lunch thinking.
the industries who are trying to survive in the US end up getting destroyed by foreign competitors (the US solar industry for example.)
Last I heard, the latest attempts to "save" the US solar industry ended up a hard fail due to a remarkable level of corruption and gullibility.
or they absolutely like seeing the quality of life with every American be eroded
The quality of life people have been helping us since the 50s. Why are things so shitty now? Because that approach doesn't work. All that spending that allegedly improves your quality of life comes out of your quality of life as well. And if it does less benefit than harm, which I might add is a common occurrence, then quality of life suffers overall.
Food supply free of aniline dyes just like in "The Jungle?"
First, you have to show there is a problem. A bullshit documentary doesn't cut it.
Usable roads?
Here's a good reason to be a tea partier. Money spent on other things isn't money spent on roads. There are clear needs that government can deliver. But they can't deliver if the money is spent on other things.
Clean air?
We have that. But we won't be able to keep it, if we don't clean up the government bureaucracy.
Look, your ideas have had decades to work. If they really were going to curtail the power of businesses and improve our quality of life, then they'd have done so by now. They don't and that's why we're in the situation we're in. And state-by-state, the states that tried the hardest to improve quality of life through government funding are the ones with the worst government services.