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."

57 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I resemble that remark!

    1. Re:Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From the mouth of babes, as they say. Something tells me that fourteen year old tweeters such as yourself know infinitely more about how the web works than this Rogers character. Not as if he cares though, right?

      And editors... Fuck it, if you haven't improved after so many mistakes there's just no point in bothering to point them out any more.

    2. Re:Hey... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure. I haven't poured through the draft of CISPA to know really how good or bad it is, but I have to have heaps of respect for a congressman with enough knowledge of pop culture, memes, and the internet in general to string that one liner together.

      Seriously, watch the video, this is the first government representative who seems to have any clue what the internet is, internet subculture, and communication in general. He makes up the comment off the cuff and then follows with a clarification in "grandma speak" of saying the bill isn't about reading e-mails.

      As I said, I don't know if what he is saying is true, or if CISPA is bad, but you have to give this Mike Rogers some credit for at least knowing enough to be able to bullshit.

    3. Re: Hey... by SJHillman · · Score: 2

      Ah, the Internet.

      Where the men are boys
      The women are men
      And dissidents are 14 year old Tweeters

  2. Last link is broken by cj.currie007 · · Score: 2

    Title says it all. EFF page says nothing was found.

    1. Re:Last link is broken by bondsbw · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think the summary needs to clarify: this is Michigan representative Mike Rogers, not Alabama representative Mike Rogers.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  3. EFF link broken by MaxToTheMax · · Score: 4, Informative

    It has an extra lowercase "l" at the end, remove that and it works.

    1. Re:EFF link broken by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 3, Funny

      But CISPA is your PAL, man!

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  4. Link to EFF needs fixing by eksith · · Score: 5, Informative

    Should be leading here

    --
    If computers were people, I'd be a misanthrope.
  5. 50 something by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:50 something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      Usually, when a politician backs crap like this (and especially when they say really ignorant things like this guy did), a file all about them shows up at their office filled with data found via legal access.

      I just have to assume that there is some heavy lobbying pressure on this guy from corporate America - corp America is increasingly dependent on Big Data and they are against anything - anything at all - that will limit their precious data. Through in the whole "national security - stopping the next marathon bomber or the next school shooting" and you have a recipe for more intrusions on our privacy.

      It doesn't help that there are millions of US citizens voluntarily giving up their privacy via Facebook.

    2. Re:50 something by EzInKy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But even the motto of the state he was elected to serve spells it out...."Audemus jura nostra defendere" - We Dare Defend Our Rights, and here he is wanting to surrender everyones to the corporate overlords.

      --
      Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
    3. Re:50 something by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Ditto. 50 years old and more conservative than this statist f**k-tard will ever be.
      The GOP should be the natural party of individual (and states') rights, but they keep nominating fascistic shits like this.
      I wonder why they're called the stupid party?

    4. Re:50 something by chihowa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Statements like yours are why Hamilton was so against the Bill of Rights from the beginning. In no way is the purpose of the Constitution to enumerate the rights of the citizens. It's sad to see that he was right.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    5. Re:50 something by chihowa · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From Federalist Papers #84:

      I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    6. Re:50 something by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's just sad. I can remember when the Republicans really were the party of small government (small in budget, small in intrusiveness, except regarding sex where they lost all sanity), and the Democrats really were the anti-censorship, anti-racism party, and the mainstream of both parties was proud of America. WTF happened in 20 years?

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    7. Re:50 something by c0lo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one is attacking your rights. Just your privacy. I know people don't like to hear it but their is no Constitutional right to privacy. What privacy you do have is by statute.

      Keep this in mind - in a democracy, anything that is not subject to a law to say otherwise:
      1. it is allowed for the citizens
      2. it is forbidden for the state/government.

      So spare me with the "Constitution doesn't grant you this right" or cease pretending US is a democracy.

      (I'll be counting the replies recycling the "by Constitution, US is a republic, not a democracy". I do hope I'll have none to count).

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    8. Re:50 something by Chas · · Score: 2

      It falls under the aegis of the Fourth Amendment. Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.

      I, at least, define the methods they would espouse to be invasive and ineffectual. Therefore unreasonable.

      If you have no problem living in a panopticon, great. Good for you!

      But this sick little subculture of invading EVERYONE'S lives with some vain and vague notion of, SOMEHOW, making people "safe" (when it accomplishes no such thing) needs to die.

      Stake through the heart.
      Cut off its head.
      Burn the remains.
      Sow them with lime.

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    9. Re:50 something by alannon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Democracy and rights are not necessarily hand in hand. The only right a democratic society needs to have is to have fair voting for laws and/or a government. Democratic societies knowingly can and often DO vote away their own rights, all the time. Democratic does not mean free or just.

    10. Re:50 something by dywolf · · Score: 2

      The US is *not* a -DIRECT- democracy.

      It's a democratic republic.

      LMFTFY.

      Your ignorance aside, yes, it is, a form of democracy.
      The word Democracy does not in and of itself imply ONLY the form known as a "direct democracy".
      The phrase "democratic repbulic" means exactly jack squat as far as "proving" we are not a democracy.
      It's the equivalent of saying "The number 2 is *not* a number. It's an even number."

      a democratic republic, or a representative democracy, or a parlamentary republic/democracy...they all mean the same damn thing. semantics aside, these constant "its not a democracy" statements are nothing more than ignorance, and attempts to obfuscate the issue. usually as a means to excuse certain behaviours and outcomes.

      Both sides were right. Both the side claiming we needed a Bill of Rights to enumerate certain rights, and the side who thought it dangerous because then anything not written down would possibly be denied. The compromise being the 9th Amendment, which makes it VERY clear that the Bill of Rights is NOT intended to be the be all end all list of all rights: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Thusly, where the people/society maintain that we do and should have a right to privacy, we de facto DO have precisely that right.

      After all. Government BY the people, OF the people, and FOR the people....so that even though we elect reps to handle the daily chores of it, we are still a democracy, and the governemt is supposed to be an abstraction of us the people at large, enforcing our collective will.

      Just because we have more important things to do than vote and execute parlimentary procedure all day, and thus elect reps to do it for us, doesnt make us "not a democracy" you ignorant dbag.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    11. Re:50 something by dywolf · · Score: 2

      for what its worth, democrats were never "the anti racism" party.
      they did become the party of the minorities, but only after the fact, and largely due to the migration of the southern democrats out of the party and the moderate republicans into it (and i say this as someone who usually votes democratic).

      if you study your history, it was the republican party that fought for abolition, and the republican party who fought to civil rights. it was then in the midst of and because of the vietnam war and the social issues of the time (including, but not solely civil rights) as expanded by LBJ, that the parties began seeing members leave their parties to join the other as the parties bagan fracturing internally. the result was the loss of the "southern democrats" (and other "conservative" leaning democrats) to the republicans, and the loss of the "rockefeller republicans" (moderates, in favor of civil rights and social reforms, who used to control the party) to the democrats, and as a result the parties became more internally homogenized, and became what we know today. Remember, up until the 60s, the Democratic party was the party of the young white rural males, particularly in the south, standing up to The Man, standing for The Little Guy, etc etc. (contrast to teh most recent election where the party heads flatly said they would no longer even court the "white male" demographic)

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    12. Re:50 something by HeckRuler · · Score: 2

      OH SNAP! That's right Chihowa, you show that OP what's what about Hamilton. That trash-talking Chihowa didn't know SHIT about Hamilton, but you dun took the words STRAIGHT FROM THE SOURCE and threw it all up in his business.

      That'll show 'em.

    13. Re:50 something by chihowa · · Score: 2

      I know. And he never saw it coming! Sucker!

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  6. Who do you trust more? by davydagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Who do you trust more? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      the basement teen in almost all instances.

      The teen in the basement knows more about real life than the Congressional idiot that will only take meeting with people who will contribute to his/her campaign.

    2. Re:Who do you trust more? by DragonTHC · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I find it humorous that the politician can't even insult us properly.

      It's either 14 year olds, OR dudes living in their parent's basement.

      Nonetheless, privacy is important to me because I'm in a better position to protect my children online as they begin to use the Internet more and more.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    3. Re:Who do you trust more? by OhANameWhatName · · Score: 2

      Who do you trust more, really?

      Teens in their basement, or slimebag politicians in washington?

      Well I definitely who I trust more, but I still wouldn't shake their hand.

  7. Look at it the other way by Cali+Thalen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
  8. corporate bubble by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2

    The us congress need less Reps like Rogers. They need people that will actually go outside the corporate bubble.

  9. I doubt he's wrong. by TheRealDevTrash · · Score: 2

    But what does it matter how old I am? Is this law bad? Yes.

    --
    I used to be /dev/trash but Slashdot no longer allows slashes for usernames.
  10. Rogers Whines Like a 14 Year Old by Colonel+Korn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:Rogers Whines Like a 14 Year Old by TheNastyInThePasty · · Score: 2

      OOOOOOOOH SNAP

      --
      The best thing about UDP jokes is I don't care if you get them or not
    2. Re:Rogers Whines Like a 14 Year Old by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Watch the video. His 14 year old nephew was obviously very aware of the dangers of the bill, even tried talking sense into him.

      It's kinda ironic. A 14 year old understand more about privacy and the ramifications of a bill than an elected politician. What's even more ironic is that said politician is the one that tells us about it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Time for a Super PAC by tokencode · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 /.

    1. Re:Time for a Super PAC by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't, but chops to you for heading towards a "managed" situation in politics.

      It's a weird line they are following - on one hand if they bomb the masses with enough ads, they get their votes. In another way, they have got to be deathly afraid if the masses actually start coordinating votes. I could go on for 3,000 words but I'll stay short in this post. The basic point is, for the first time ever, Social Media can Coordinate votes to counter the advantage politicians have had of close access in the Capitol for a hundred years. Right now there's no platform for it. But so help us when there is, this grand Pres cycle will be a WHOLE NEW game.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    2. Re:Time for a Super PAC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... language they understand ... votes.

      As capture theory reveals: The decision-making process is controlled by small dedicated interests. Any large group has split loyalties that prevents them matching the influence of the fanatic/paid faction. US congress itself is an example of this. It also occurs after the common enemy has been defeated in a civil war or political revolution.

      ... start a crowd-funded super PAC ...

      You've just described Green Peace, and possibly Wiki-leaks. How many donate to those organisations?

  12. 14 year olds care about privacy? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...)

  13. Dear Mike Rodgers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

  14. Typical... by Kittenman · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  15. Re:can't even insult us properly. by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

    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
  16. Stereotypes and Vacuums by Millennium · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

  17. So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA by Grimbleton · · Score: 2

    It's a shame he only cares about one part of the bill of rights.

    1. Re:So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      My favorite is the 10th Amendment which is absolutely, totally ignored by Congress.

    2. Re:So I notice he has an A rating from the NRA by Alex+Vulpes · · Score: 2

      When the internet is outlawed, only outlaws will have the internet.

      Yes, a free internet can be dangerous in the wrong hands -- but of all people, a gun rights advocate should understand why that's not grounds for banning/controlling/censoring it.

  18. Bullshit all Around by Great+Big+Bird · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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

  19. Obama has threatened to veto it by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm fairly sure the President of the USA is not a 14 year old tweeter.

    1. Re:Obama has threatened to veto it by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      The Washington Times? You have got to be kidding.

    2. Re:Obama has threatened to veto it by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2

      The Washington Times? You have got to be kidding.

      Shhh . . . He thinks it's the same as the Post.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
  20. Don't play their game! by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Don't play their game! by Scared+Rabbit · · Score: 3, Informative

      *WOOSH*

  21. From what I can tell... by rusty0101 · · Score: 2

    ...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...
  22. Adults care about privacy too by servognome · · Score: 2

    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
  23. I'm getting really tired of this shit by FuzzNugget · · Score: 2

    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?

  24. How Republicans Think by Required+Snark · · Score: 3, Informative
    Rodgers is far from the only Republican who thinks that citizens should shut up and do as they are told.

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/17/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html

    "I am the senator. You are the citizen. You need to be quiet."

    -- North Carolina State Senator Tommy Tucker (R), quoted by the Raleigh News and Observer, to Goldsboro News-Argus publisher Hal Tanner who was opposing legislation to change public notice requirements for local government.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  25. Who's 14? by betterprimate · · Score: 2

    Sounds like something a 14-year-old would say.

  26. So, which one is it? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    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.
  27. Here's a way to make him listen by T.E.D. · · Score: 2

    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.