Slashdot Mirror
Rep. Mike Rogers Dismisses CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeter On the Internet"
gale the simple writes "Mike Rodgers made a minor splash Tuesday when he decided to liken CISPA opponents to 14-year-old basement dwellers. The EFF, naturally, picked up on this generalization and asked everyone to let the representative know that it is not just the 14-year-olds that care about privacy."
I resemble that remark!
Title says it all. EFF page says nothing was found.
It has an extra lowercase "l" at the end, remove that and it works.
Should be leading here
If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Who do you trust more, really?
Teens in their basement, or slimebag politicians in washington?
At least we know teenagers in their basements aren't taking money from special corporate intrests trying to fuck us all over.
My first thought was...after sitting down and discussing it with his 14 year old nephew, it must all have gone over Rodgers' head, and he didn't learn anything. Hey, next time let the kid write the legislation, leave it to the experts.
Chaos, panic, disorder...my work here is done.
Need you know more?
The us congress need less Reps like Rogers. They need people that will actually go outside the corporate bubble.
But what does it matter how old I am? Is this law bad? Yes.
I used to be
We need the same backing we had against SOPA for this. They're selling this way too hard towards the common users that we saw fighting with us agains SOPA. This is the wrong approach. The internet should be free, and regulated by those of those who contribute to it, not the government. They don't know what they're talking about in this issue, they use the phrase "tweeter", and all together we can realise that those are not the people who we need to help make the internet a better place. Right now we have more freedom on the internet than ever. The moment they lock us down... http://www.reddit.com/r/darknetplan
Honestly, 14 year olds tend not to be remotely aware of the evils of bills like CISPA. In my experience it's the best and brightest segment of society that's united against this nonsense. On the other hand, 14 year olds are quite familiar with answering criticism with a false ad hominem attack.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
If you want congressmen to take your opinion seriously, you need to speak in the only language they understand... votes. Someone needs to start a crowd-funded super PAC that specifically targets politically vulnerable candidates who opposed privacy. Start running negative ads in their home districts and you may see a change, but last I checked no one in Washington gives a crap about what is posted on /.
14 year olds care about privacy? Really? REALLY? Hello, there's a website we'd like to introduce you to Mr. Congresscritter. It's called Facebook. You should find out what happens there sometime.
Is it just me or has the rate of public officials mouthing off like children increased? Don't these people have any dignity anymore? (That last is a rhetorical question...)
Rep. Mike Rogers == Insensitive Clod
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
You have just funded your opposition, and if I didn't consider it a near-certainty that you were in a contrived electoral district that would re-elect you for anything short of being caught with a dead 14 year old in your bed, that would spell your doom.
As it stands, there's always some hope.
Republicans doing sweeping generalizations...
They always do that sort of thing
pause....
"The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
Heh I'll reply to you. Yeah, this one is a pretty bad mis-step.
I won't even use logic because that's too hard for this person. Let's stay at the Pre-logic level that the dev. psychologists say works for children.
Age 14. Really?! SO many things wrong with that age metaphor. Let's try to keep it obvious.
14 year olds can't vote.
So what are they doing, brainwashing their older brothers and sisters?!
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Unfortunately, the man has something of a point. There are a lot of 14-year-old basement dwellers in the anti-CISPA crowd, and a lot of people who just want to get their entertainment without paying for it. In short, a significant number of the people who oppose CISPA are doing it for the wrong reasons. CISPA is wrong, but so are they.
Those of us who care about the real issues might do well to disassociate ourselves from the creepers and the pirates. Even they need protection, but let's not kid ourselves, that's more a matter of logistics than principle: protection is meaningless if it doesn't protect everyone, and so they get a pass in order to make it work at all. Their voices in this debate only harm the side they fight for. But this presents a problem: how the heck would a community like this disassociate itself from its less savory members?
It's a shame he only cares about one part of the bill of rights.
So are we going to have this song and dance every year?
1. Politicians introduce legislation against common people's interests.
2. Initial concerns over privacy/abuse of power are voiced.
3. Companies of all sorts voice support, and how much it is needed.
4. Apparently clueless politicians make statements minimizing critics as somehow insignificant.
5. Huge outrage swells up from 'the people'
6. Politicians and Companies back-pedal
7. Last clueless politician stays the course.
8. Bill dies.
9. ???
10. Rince and Repeat
Because I believe I am substantially older than 14 years old and I oppose the CISPA.
I'm fairly sure the President of the USA is not a 14 year old tweeter.
A congress-critter who doesn't understand legislation's effect on technology. Will wonders never cease!
"To stop the terrorists."
It's not just you, but I wouldn't slander the Kids!
(Have we forgotten that meme that fast, that all the cyber bills are For The Kids?!)
They are mouthing off, but not kids - some kind of weird way they think the "mood is right" and they can get away with it.
Any 3 of these 10 stories would have been career enders Back In The Day.
But there's some kind of magic going on - they can say *absolutely anything* and still keep their elected posts.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
If you have not yet figured it out, there is no line between Democrat and Republican any longer. They are all on the same team, and hint: it is not your team. Keep thinking they differ and the same will continue. They want us bickering over rep. Vs dem. and black vs white, and atheist vs religious , or anything else that keeps you from watching what they are doing.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
dennigrated
By "this person" are you referring to Mike Rogers or DragonTHC?
He claims that Silicon Valley CEO's support this bill. Well, let's see. Google never took a stance, Facebook and Microsoft rescinded their support, while AT&T and Verizon (big surprise), IBM, Intel and McAfee support it (didn't Intel buy McAfee?)
So no, Silicon Valley CEO's do NOT all support it - and even if they did, it isn't a ringing endorsement against privacy concerns. After all, what does the CEO know about the technical ramifications? In many cases (esp. for long established companies), they are business school graduates. They know that they are now off the hook for breaking privacy contracts. Gee, I'm surprised that some companies don't support it!
And for the love of God, can it be made illegal to give cool sounding names to acts and bills that sound all "PATRIOT-ic"? Not that I expect the politician who writes the bills is dumb enough to believe that they are rally helping their country (instead of their political backers), but it stops silly soundbites like "My opponent voted against the CyberSecurity bill".
...Mike isn't going to be able to go after the 14 year old tweeter for a TOS violation under CFAA, as the TOS at Twitter do not seem to have a minimum age requirement that he would be violating.
As someone on the far side of 40 from the described 14 year old, I have to say that I appreciate that 14 year olds who are opposed to CISPA are aware that this will have an affect on their privacy, and are being vocal about it. It suggests that civic responsibility is recognized as part of one's personal sense of duty to our youth, which suggests that at least someone is paying attention to their school classes, which may be counter to what Mike expects of any of the public, much less the 14 year olds out there. It also suggests that a 14 year old is more aware of the issues involved than this sitting representative. While I think that's a positive reflection on our youth, I think it's a very poor reflection on at least one of our representatives in Congress.
You never know...
Look, this guy may be an out of touch jackass, but what he should have said was "These people are not my constituents, and they did not elect me". Look people, I don't call and harass elected representatives from YOUR state and district. He is accountable first to his constituents (the people who voted for him to be precise), THEN to his state, THEN to the nation. remember, his vote on a bill is supposed to be his district's vote. and let's be honest, we don't know how many of them feel the way we do. Call YOUR representatives in Congress, and let THEM know how you feel about the bill. That is the appropriate and fair thing to do in this case.
We already know Republicans are totally out of touch. Nothing new here. Move along.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Who?
https://twitter.com/jimktrains/status/324711791034761216
@RepMikeRogers I wonder if calling me a 14yro in a basement & implying I'm uneducated&unprosperous bc I disagree with you counts as slander
"You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
I'm 45 and it is still not okay for my parents to come into the basement without knocking first!
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
Every year or more often, it seems, we have yet another jaw-droppingly fascist and Orwellian proposition to fight.
Some wrinkly old dipshit psychopath completely disconnected from reality, at the behest of his (or her, but mostly his) corporate cronies, makes some astoundingly malevolent proposition to sacrifice the rights of everyone but himself and selected entitled individuals. We then have to step up and expend an enormous amount of time and energy battling to retain the rights we should be able to take for granted. Time and energy that could otherwise be used constructively.
If this becomes a big enough threat, the response needs to be alike to that of SOPA. Even after the people won, they rubbed it in: practically half the web went dark and DC went batshit. It's been little more than a year since then, have they already forgotten or has the dark lens of pure evil blinded them that much?
Speak for yourself. This 14 year old (OK, not 14, any more, but when I was) was contributing to the ACLU and EFF. More so then than now even and I'm still extremely active (more so now, just cause, well, it's my job, cause, well, I believe the cause is worthy and valuable to society, which includes myself).
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/17/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html
Why is Snark Required?
Age 14. Really?! SO many things wrong with that age metaphor. Let's try to keep it obvious.
14 year olds can't vote.
I think that's the point of the insult: Rep. Mike Rogers was trying to say that the people making anti-CISPA posts on the Internet are immature and irrelevant. In other words, that there is no real opposition to CISPA. This, of course, is absurd, but the problem with his statement is that it is false and ad hominem, not that is it inconsistent.
Sounds like something a 14-year-old would say.
That's why he said "tend" dumbass.
Signed up to Twitter just to give that slimy idiot a piece of my mind.
If CEOs of companies whose enitre business is built around spying on their users support this, then it *must* be what's best for the rest of the Internet!
Well this is Michigan, wtf would they know about web businesses?
-- 1. it is allowed for the citizens
-- 2. it is forbidden for the state/government.
Actually, that is not what the definition of a "democracy" is. A democracy is defined more generally. Your specific items are actually enumerated amendments to the Constitution of the USA.
Your items (1) and (2) are specifically spelled out by the 9th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution :The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. and the
10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
So your statement is really wrong. The 9th and 10th amendment are all about specifying changes to the Constitution of the U.S.A., not about defining "what a democracy is."
Way to construct a straw man and burn it down, girl. Can you please show me were did I say: "democracy IS..."?
I said "... in a democracy... " (it's like saying: "A required condition(s) for democracy is/are...").
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
In 3 to 4 years, these 14 year olds in their basements will be VOTING 17 (primaries)/18 year olds. Dissing your future electorate is not a good way to keep your seat. Anyway, this soon to be 50 year old has a great deal of concern over the way US computer related statutes are being drafted, even though I'm not even a US citizen, but a UK citizen
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
US Senator is willing to dismiss the opinion of 14 year old basement-dwellers out of hand.
Seriously, they are representatives.
Irrespective of the statement, are you going to let any senator get away with publicly refusing to represent someone? Let alone a whole subset of the population?
Yes, 14 year olds don't get to vote -- that's even more reason why you should not let anyone get away with such a dismissal.
In my experience it's the best and brightest segment of society that's united against this nonsense.
Unfortunately, though, the rest of society falls under the "absolutely retarded" segment. So we're just fucked.
What, 14-year-old tweeters living in their mom's basement aren't citizens with legitimate concerns about legislation that might affect them?
Lets assume for the sake of argument, that he is right. And the only people who care about privacy are 14 year olds... Is he saying that they don't deserve their privacy? Won't he at least think of the children?
Wish I had a basement to stick my 14 year old in.
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
It took me all of three minutes to isolate his Flash Cookie.
My my my. Just LOOK at what he's been doing!
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Either he doesn't understand the implications of the bill, even after his 14 year old nephew (who quite obviously does) tried, and tried hard enough for him to remember it, to explain it to him.
Or he does understand it very well, but someone is spending enough to make him push it through.
So which is it, Representative? You incompetent or a ho?
You called me a 14 year old, don't wonder when I respond like one.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
If you don't like the turd sammich anymore, there's still the giant douche.
In other words, yes, he can say anything. 'cause the only other guy you can vote in is about the same pile of crap, and a lot of people catch on.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The "14-year-old" crack is of course code for "the complainers don't count becase they don't donate money to anybody". IMHO, that's even more aggrevating.
So are you little angry about being insulted by this corporate puppet? Well, there is a way you can get back at him. Show your displeasure in a way he understand.
Donate money to his opponent.
There's a Democrat trying to challenge Mike Rogers, by the name of Lance Enderle. I don't know too much about the guy, but he has apparently pledged to take no PAC money. So he may be a drooling pinhead, but if you donate he'll at least be your drooling pinhead, and not the RIAA's.
no text
If 14 year olds oppose a law that is simply evil than more power to them. Means that the kiddies are smart than the schmoe that's trying to diss them. Fuck you Mr. Mike Rogers.
However I'm quite sure that it ain't the case and that he labels everyone that does not think like him and the lobby groups he works for as being stupid/immature. Well, I said it before and now I say it again, "fuck you Mr. Mike Rogers"
if they were all 14 year old's, you'd think he'd refrain from dismissing their opinions.... since they'll be voting in just 4 more years, the length of one term in office for Mike Rogers.
>
14 year olds can't vote.
That might have been his point. He's trying to discredit that large number os dissenting opinions on social media by saying they don't matter. If they were in fact all made by children under the age of majority that would be a pretty good way to discredit them. After all their's a reason children don't get the vote and it isn't because adults are afraid that society might get too perfect if they did.
always trying to shove something down a 14 year old boy's throat.
Folks, Could people please let me know if I've missed anything here? I'm old school libertarian. If you don't know what that means, lets just say I believe in Private Property and the constitution. And I don't see anything wrong with this bill.
Not that I've read the bill -- I've just read the objections to the bill. Hopefully its just a case of badly defined opposition.
First -- For those of you who are partisan, the White House wants to veto this bill.. But they support another bill coming up sponsored by Leiberman et al that sets security standards. Lets see -- someone poking around in underwear you left in public, or someone telling you how you need to display your underwear if its public. I prefer the former. Not a perfect analogy (since with real underwear you have 'control' issues that don't apply to bits and bytes).
Second -- we are not talking about "Private" data. We are talking about data at private companies. Note the different uses of the same term. The data you post on, for example, facebook is as private as the contract you signed with facebook. Which is to say... None. With respect to this law, we are talking infrastructure data such as connections, perhaps identities, etc. And if the various people in the loop have not guaranteed your privacy via a contract...
Third -- so the issue seems to be that this law circumvents several other *laws* that existed to protect your privacy. Some of these laws were written at the time of the phone, where the government (and its monopoly bitches Bell or ATT, et al) was in full control. Those laws affected *its* resources, much like laws about graffiti might affect use of sidewalks. As for the laws affecting *cyberspace* (the public internet, or its public infrastructure), we have privacy only as much as Government grants it to us.
A true libertarian (note the lowercase l just so one doesn't confuse my general philosophy with the Libertarian Party positions) would instead find a way to create a private internet, where it could then dictate what rights its users would enjoy. Which includes binding themselves via a contract to those policies. Then the Government would have to get a search warrant if it wanted to get any data that the company either didn't want to give out, or was bound by contract not to.
Yes, that is an idealized suggestion. A more practical one might be to only support companies that store your data under an iron clad privacy contract. With respect to data in transmission, we have encryption via SSL and PGP.
So could someone who reads the bill tell me what part of it is so horrible from a civil liberties standpoint?
G.
I assume he does not think that the millions of 14 years olds are going to be voters one day. Not everything a persons believes or thinks is immature just because they are young. This Rep is going to come to understan that when my boys get old enought to vote, I will gladly remind them of his words.
In general, I'm concerned about the implications that someone who is underaged has no value.
That type of thinking is rather unprogressive; it might not be that we have a few "young prodigies" that do great work in their teens, but that most people are so surpressed in their teens that their spark of genius dies out... which politicians might like, it is not like politicians are know for being geniuses in general, but for those of us who like a society which can advance, and where people can do things that are novel, which is just about everything valuable, then this statement to me is rather sad.
When it comes to the basement dwelling part, considering how many people lost their houses recently, might not many of the population now be lucky to be living in basements, if they aren't homeless? Some people also choose this rather than renting an apartment so they can save up money for a house downpayment, or something else important... does that immediately mean that you have no maturity?
I get the gist that he is dismissing those people as immature, but judging people for superficial things like age (which a person cannot change) or living situation (which may not be related to their overall wisdom in life at all, esp. in the current economic climate) just shows that he doesn't have what it takes to understand the actual issues, and has to attack people on a personal level instead.
To me, that is the really sad thing.
.
Even using your own example of it's like saying: "A required condition(s) for democracy is/are..."
you should be able to see that your example is specific for the democracy that is the United States of America as defined by the articles of the Constitution and the various Amendments I cited earlier. These specific articles and amendments apply specifically to the U.S.A. and do not apply generally to the concept of a "democracy" in the general sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy#History.
For the general definition of a democracy as defined by the Greeks, please see the three wikipedia articles below, all of which cite numerous references. Democracy refers to "ruling by the people" or "power held by the people" rather than by someone above or over the people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
He must have taken the same privacy (or rather anti-privacy) course as our own Vic Toews (Canada's Public Safety Minister) - known for his comment "you can either stand with us, or with the child pornographers", during discussion of the Omnibus Crime Bill C-30. http://bit.ly/ZwWNZ5
That's because he thinks the Interwebz is a series of Tubes!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes