CISPA Passes US House, Despite Privacy Shortcomings and Promised Veto

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CISPA Passes US House, Despite Privacy Shortcomings and Promised Veto

Posted by timothy on Thursday April 18, 2013 @06:13AM from the in-this-house-we-obey-the-rules-of-panopticon dept.

An anonymous reader writes with a story at the Daily Dot: "Despite the protests of Internet privacy advocates, the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) passed the House of Representatives Thursday. The vote was 288-127. ... CISPA saw a handful of minor amendments soon before passage. A representative for the EFF told the Daily Dot that while they were still analyzing the specifics, none of the actual changes to the bill addressed their core criticisms. ... But also as was the case the year before, on Tuesday the Obama administration issued a promise to veto the bill if it reaches the president’s desk without significant changes." Techdirt has a short report on the vote, too — and probably more cutting commentary soon to follow.

66 of 231 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Veto ??? by retech · 2013-04-18 06:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

I doubt, sincerely, that he'll veto this. Talk and actions are entirely different things. And he's got just as much ass to kiss as anyone else. He'll spin it just like everything else and say: "We're going to keep an eye on this...." Just like he's done before. But, once it's law no eyeball watching will do a damn thing to stop the ball from rolling.
1. Re:Veto ??? by MyFirstNameIsPaul · 2013-04-18 06:32 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  He also said he would veto the NDAA. When it comes to power of the police state, no publicly elected official who matters is opposed.
  
  --
  I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
2. Re:Veto ??? by fustakrakich · 2013-04-18 06:33 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Yeah, his record on kept promises is pretty dismal, not that it really matters. Nobody cares enough to vote the Party out of power.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
3. Re:Veto ??? by Genda · 2013-04-18 06:55 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I find myself at an impasse. I can vote for the party that makes the right promises then doesn't keep them, or the party that makes all the wrong promises and does keep them. This leaves me vacillating between futile hope and grotesque masochism. Where are the guys that make the RIGHT promises and keep them? Where are they hiding those guys? Oh! Right. I forgot. You can't buy the right guys. Therefore you can't sell them to the public.
4. Re:Veto ??? by Trepidity · 2013-04-18 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  It also got more than a 2/3 majority, so it's not clear a veto would even matter. Though it's possible that some of the "yes" Dem votes here would change to "no" if Obama vetoed it, to avoid overriding a president from their party.
  
  --
  10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
5. Re:Veto ??? by thomasw_lrd · 2013-04-18 07:03 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The right people can be voted in to power, but you have to start at the local level and you have to keep up a running dialogue with them. You also have to spend your time, your money, and your energy to make sure they get elected. That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.
  
  --
  21st Century Renaissance Man
6. Re:Veto ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 07:13 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  You also have to spend your time, your money, and your energy to make sure they get elected.
  
  That's a feature, not a bug. "A republic, if you can keep it"
  
  That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.
  No, that's a problem with people.
7. Re:Veto ??? by Joce640k · 2013-04-18 07:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.
  Do you have any idea of the personal time and energy needed to change things?
  The rich people/corporations can pay somebody else to do it for them. The guy in the street can't. Hence the system.
  (Robert Heinlein's "Take Back Your Government" is basically this).
  
  --
  No sig today...
8. Re:Veto ??? by thomasw_lrd · 2013-04-18 07:18 · Score: 2
  
  I would like to disagree with you, one of my senators is a democrat and he voted against the amendments yesterday this was a direct result of a concerted effort to contact him and let him know where his constituents stood. But it could've been NRA money that changed his mind. Only time will tell.
  
  --
  21st Century Renaissance Man
9. Re:Veto ??? by thomasw_lrd · 2013-04-18 07:31 · Score: 2
  
  I hadn't heard of that one from Heinlein, I'll have to read it.
  I agree that its a time consuming effort, but it has to start somewhere.
  
  --
  21st Century Renaissance Man
10. Re:Veto ??? by betterunixthanunix · 2013-04-18 07:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Where are the guys that make the RIGHT promises and keep them?
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_party_(United_States)
  
  --
  Palm trees and 8
11. Re:Veto ??? by MachineShedFred · 2013-04-18 07:45 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The Senate would also need a vote of 67 "yea" tallies to override a veto. They can't even get 60 votes on a lunch order, much less a veto override - and this is also considering that the majority of the Senate is the same political party as the President.
  A veto would stick.
  
  --
  Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
12. Re:Veto ??? by Joce640k · 2013-04-18 07:51 · Score: 2
  
  Google turned up a PDF of it here: http://gpnp.net/backshelves.gpnp.net/001%20scifi%20ebooks/scifi%20fav%20authors/heinlein%20ebooks/Robert%20A%20Heinlein%20-%20Take%20Back%20Your%20Government.pdf
  
  --
  No sig today...
13. Re:Veto ??? by tlhIngan · 2013-04-18 07:52 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  That's the problem with the American political system, the people are too lazy to do anything, but complain.
  Once elected, they don't care about you or your complaints, only power and $$$ from their corporate overlords.
  That's the problem with the American political system
  Perhaps the best way is these days, to follow the constitution. 1 representative per 30,000 people.
  It's doable these days - you don't have to fit all 10,000 reps in one building - we have telecommuting, after all.
  This has enormous implications.
  First, pay will have to be cut dramatically - I believe the original founding fathers expected politicians to sacrifice themselves for political life. We can easily do this by making their pay equal to the median of the people they represent (not the average).
  Second, corporate influence has just gone down significantly. When you have a company spending $1B on campaign contributions, that's rougly $2M per representive right now. With 10,000 of them, that's $100K apiece, or just over $3 per person they're representing. Companies wanting to buy laws suddenly have to pay a whole lot o more money. And the amount can actually be raised by individuals in the community.
  Third, more local representation - because they're going to represent a smaller slice of the population, so it's a lot easier to actually see what people in the community want. And with lowered pay, they get to see the same problems everyone else in the community has.
  Fourth, less whipping possible - you try keeping the entire party in line - if we assume half and half, you try keeping 5,000 people in line - it's a lot harder.
14. Re:Veto ??? by s.petry · 2013-04-18 08:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  So you are obviously not voting the right people into office. It's like picking potential wives at the bar, then expecting them to A) Not go to bars, and B) stop drinking, after you get married. If you want a person to stay at home and not drink, you probably won't find her at a bar.
  Unfortunately many people lack the ability to see things rationally. I blame our education system personally, as the citizen's education must follow rules imposed by the Government.
  
  --
  -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
15. Re:Veto ??? by dmitrygr · 2013-04-18 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  And this is why I support the right to arm bears... A couple of well-armed bears in DC will set this all straight...
  
  --
  -------
  1. Enjoy your job
  2. Make lots of money
  3. Work within the law
  
  Choose any two.
16. Re:Veto ??? by MightyYar · 2013-04-18 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  See also: leveling the playing field.
  
  --
  W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
17. Re:Veto ??? by cffrost · 2013-04-18 09:11 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I find myself at an impasse. I can vote for the party that makes the right promises then doesn't keep them, or the party that makes all the wrong promises and does keep them. This leaves me vacillating between futile hope and grotesque masochism.
  
  That's a false dilemma. Voting for Democrat/Republican is not your only choice. Keep voting for liars, thieves and sociopaths, and that's what you'll always wind up with.
  
  Where are the guys that make the RIGHT promises and keep them? Where are they hiding those guys?
  
  In the third parties. They might not win, but you'll maintain whatever integrity you have, and you'll send an important message.
  
  Oh! Right. I forgot. You can't buy the right guys. Therefore you can't sell them to the public.
  
  If they're on the ballot, you can vote for them — spread the word.
  
  --
  Thank you, Edward Snowden.
  
  "Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
18. Re:Veto ??? by Type44Q · 2013-04-18 09:28 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  no publicly elected official who matters is opposed.
  Might have something to do with the fact that the last one who actually mattered was deposed...
19. Re:Veto ??? by fustakrakich · 2013-04-18 10:06 · Score: 2
  
  Read up on how "rotating villain" works, and maybe you might understand that it's 'Party', not 'Parties'. That is not to say that there are no bickering factions within the whole, only that we are dealing with a tag team that is proficient at playing both sides of an issue in order to maintain its overall power.
  
  --
  “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
20. Re:Veto ??? by Princeofcups · 2013-04-18 10:18 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Perhaps the best way is these days, to follow the constitution. 1 representative per 30,000 people.
  It's doable these days - you don't have to fit all 10,000 reps in one building - we have telecommuting, after all.
  This has enormous implications.
  First, pay will have to be cut dramatically - I believe the original founding fathers expected politicians to sacrifice themselves for political life. We can easily do this by making their pay equal to the median of the people they represent (not the average).
  The problem is that the early politicians were mostly independently wealthy. Remember where they came from. They were a bunch of high ranking Masonic idealists who had a personal interest in making their new country work. Where can you find such idealists these days? That is, who are competent and willing to dedicate their lives? I'm not seeing ANY hands raised in this crowd.
  
  Second, corporate influence has just gone down significantly. When you have a company spending $1B on campaign contributions, that's rougly $2M per representive right now. With 10,000 of them, that's $100K apiece, or just over $3 per person they're representing. Companies wanting to buy laws suddenly have to pay a whole lot o more money. And the amount can actually be raised by individuals in the community.
  The amount of money is not the problem. It's the fact that it's business as usual for the politicians. You don't get elected without the help of the rich and wealthy. They will make sure that their people are the ones who win the elections. So they need more lower paid flunkies. How does that solve anything.
  
  Third, more local representation - because they're going to represent a smaller slice of the population, so it's a lot easier to actually see what people in the community want. And with lowered pay, they get to see the same problems everyone else in the community has.
  Fourth, less whipping possible - you try keeping the entire party in line - if we assume half and half, you try keeping 5,000 people in line - it's a lot harder.
  Nor does that solve anything. Every small community has their own agenda, and with all of them arguing over who's priorities are important, we'll get even less done.
  No, the problem is that there is no longer any sense of work or sacrifice of personal comfort for the common good. We are a country of "us" verses "them" in everything that we do. Everything is competition, and nothing is cooperation. Hell, how many people here are big on free market competition? As long as everyone fights to can change the system so that they can personally benefit, be it through lucrative middle class tech jobs or whatever, then it will always be "us against them."
  All that we can do at this point is slow the decline of this once (arguably) great nation and avoid total collapse in our lifetimes. The parallels between the US and the last days or Rome are not just a cliche. I personally find it more interesting to think about what we can form out of the rubble when we start to rebuild. How should we do it differently next time? The US system was a great improvement on the parliamentary monarchy. We saw communism torn down through corruption even faster than our system. Where did we go wrong? How did the sociopathic assholes take over, and how do we avoid that? Dunno, but food for thought.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
21. Re:Veto ??? by bdwebb · 2013-04-18 10:24 · Score: 2
  
  There aren't only two parties to choose from. They are all politicians and they are on their own side. The people of our country base their political opinions on partisan media sources that tell them what they want to hear or antiquated family indoctrinations into the 'side that doesn't lie to you' but ultimately we are kept so divided by this idiocy that we can't find a middle-ground ANYWHERE.
  
  Every intelligent, responsible individual in this country should register non-partisan and make their own decisions just based upon principle alone. This country was founded in that light and everyone seems to forget that we don't have to go one way or the other...we don't have to be part of a club. Everyone is so terrified of being wrong and everyone has such a desperate need for someone to point the finger at but ultimately we should be looking in a fucking mirror. Our politicians serve as an extension of the people and I don't blame them anymore for being conniving, self-interested liars and thieves...we made them this way by accepting and SUPPORTING their behavior.
  
  If we even got a fraction of the country to separate themselves from their ideologies for a moment and to really think things through without trying to find a way to justify their opinion while disregarding any contrary thoughts or evidence, the political structure of our country would shift drastically. In the end, as long as we can turn on Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, etc. and hear exactly what we want to hear, we are all perfectly fine with fighting each other and doing nothing. High five America.
22. Re:Veto ??? by alexo · 2013-04-18 10:34 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  So you are obviously not voting the right people into office.
  Obviously, since a person fit to govern will not want to.
23. Re:Veto ??? by femtobyte · 2013-04-18 11:31 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  I think the problem is larger and more systematic than you make out. Citizen "apathy, ignorance, and fear" isn't created in a vacuum from the personal character flaws of individual citizens. These are shaped by the pervasive propaganda influence that a wealthy ruling class can wield over the entire citizenry --- an art refined to a science over the past century. When every news channel, every radio station, every newspaper and magazine advocates on behalf of the ruling class (even while providing the appearance of choice, on less critical matters, between factions of the Capitalist Party) --- even citizens who make a decent effort to be well-informed and civic-minded are left crippled of the ability to think outside the frameworks set by their corporate masters (and "respectable, educated" citizens become unwitting tools advocating the protection of corruption). Rather than starting at the ballot box, the real "battle" to be won is that of education (countering and subverting the dominant narratives that shape public acceptance of the system); without laying this foundation, no worthwhile change (by voting or other means) will be achieved.
  
  If voting could change anything, they'd make it illegal.
  -attributed to Emma Goldman
Handing over our Rights by l0ungeb0y · 2013-04-18 06:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Amazing to see a Bill that does an end run around the Constitution by allowing a contract (a software ToS Agreement") have the full force of law with FEDERAL CRIMINAL PENALTY.
It doesn't matter if this passes or not. The message is clear enough: The rights and liberties of US citizens are forfeit and we shall be placed under the dominion of the Corporations.
Other bills will come later when this doesn't pass, and more after that until the Corporations get what they are paying for -- full control and domain over the citizens of the US and the ability to place any arbitrary rule of law upon them that they see fit and to have the US Gov't be little more than the zealous enforcer of those arbitrary laws.
I think we need this. Maybe then this country will become so incensed as to violently take down a government so corrupt and out of control that no other means exist to change it and start again -- learning from our mistakes. Or maybe the people will become even more apathetic than they are now and just lay down and submit.
Either way -- major changes are coming for the people of the US, and none of them good.
1. Re:Handing over our Rights by Intrepid+imaginaut · 2013-04-18 06:46 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Look on the bright side - cyberpunk is cool and now we get to live in it! Mirrorshades and mullets baby.
2. Re:Handing over our Rights by phdscam · 2013-04-18 06:47 · Score: 2
  
  US used to be LOT better in terms of civil rights. Gradual erosion is a pain to watch.
3. Re:Handing over our Rights by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-04-18 06:50 · Score: 2
  
  How is his corporations' fault? It's good old government normality: Trying to void rights, and the same way Hitler did, by appealing to emergency needs.
  All the corporations did was, reasonably, seek legal protection for governments abusing this power.
  The correct solution is to forbid government this power to begin with. That, more than anything else, is the core teaching of the US Constitution.
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
4. Re:Handing over our Rights by gmuslera · 2013-04-18 06:56 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  It won't change. There is no space for a change in the trend when the most of the places for coordinate them (or that could disclose that it is happening) are under tight surveillance, and the remaining free/secure spaces are becoming outlawed. And most people are not aware or not care that they traded freedom for relative safety (at least until is their turn), they think they have a democracy in US, but it's just Lesterland
  What worries me is how all of this spills over all the rest of the world. If you think US care little about the right of their citizens, you should see how just not care at all about others.
5. Re:Handing over our Rights by Genda · 2013-04-18 07:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Gradual erosion? Hell, thermonuclear incineration is more like it. It took 200 years to make a social form that was the envy of the planet. It took 30 years to turn it into a corporate toilet. In the last ten, its looking like an SR-70 in a full powered dive. I'm just waiting to see Chuck Yeagers smiling face commenting "Nice Auger Job Rooky."
6. Re:Handing over our Rights by boorack · 2013-04-18 08:03 · Score: 2
  
  I think we need this. Maybe then this country will become so incensed as to violently take down a government so corrupt and out of control that no other means exist to change it and start again -- learning from our mistakes. Or maybe the people will become even more apathetic than they are now and just lay down and submit.
  I beg to differ. At a point where most of people will want to take down government violently, you'll have fully armed drones ("Obama Drones") flying over US bombing anyone your lovely coporations want to be eliminated. Your lovely corporate media will spew lies justifying killing or will orchestrate media blackout, so no one will know about this. Pretty much like in Pakistan today. If you think that your psychopatic corporate overlords see any difference between killing US citizens and some brown people in Pakistan (except for bad PR), you'll find it out the hard way.
  
  Either way -- major changes are coming for the people of the US, and none of them good.
  It's never too late to try fighting this disease. Unfortunately, anyone trying to protest against corporate greed and corruption from now on, will propably face some jail time - just like in old communist countries, when the powers that be lose legitimacy and abilities to manipulate the public, they resort to more and more brutal tactics.
7. Re:Handing over our Rights by BlueStrat · 2013-04-18 08:31 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The correct solution is to forbid government this power to begin with. That, more than anything else, is the core teaching of the US Constitution.
  It amazes me how many here buy into the propaganda that anyone who desires that the government obey the US Constitution's limits to the government's scope and powers is somehow an "extremist".
  For those confused, let me put the basic idea of the Constitution into different terms.
  The US Constitution is the design for a distributed network.
  It's a network of power, no different in basic principles to a computer network. The Constitution lays out the basis for a distributed network, with self-checking and redundancy built into the design. The purpose of the design is to distribute political power and it's exercise rather than concentrate it centrally, as basic network security principles assert that a distributed network is much harder to globally (in a systems sense) corrupt than simply compromising a single point of control.
  Too much power has been concentrated in one place (the Federal government) over the last 100 years or so and therefor various interests fight for control, as it gives them a way to change things across the entire nation. If power were more distributed, it would be orders of magnitude more difficult and expensive to enact nationwide corrupt laws/policies/etc. Why would some special interest try to bribe/corrupt a member or branch/agency/dept. of the federal government if they don't have the power to do what they want in the first place?
  Seriously, I don't understand how so many Slashdotters who in other threads show the ability to understand and point out similar flaws in complex computer and network security systems totally fail to grasp, or dismiss out of hand, the above concepts when applied to networks/systems of political power and the exercise thereof.
  This should not be rocket surgery for a bunch of card-carrying Slashdot nerds and geeks, unless they've sold their geek cards to emotional rather than logical identity politics and class warfare, and abandoned logic and intellectual honesty to join in succumbing to emotional mob-mentality political/ideological mass-manipulation.
  The authors of the US Constitution were genius systems engineers who were far ahead of their time. From many comments I read almost daily, I suspect they remain far ahead of many in this "modern" age as well, including many if not most of the leaders of both political parties and our elected & unelected officials in the Federal Government.
  Strat
  
  --
  Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
8. Re:Handing over our Rights by gmanterry · 2013-04-18 08:32 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  US used to be LOT better in terms of civil rights. Gradual erosion is a pain to watch.
  I'm in my 70s. When my generation dies (soon), there will be no one left who really know the wonderful freedoms we experienced in this country when I was young. The problem with our dying freedoms are two fold, as I see it. Too damned many people on this earth. We have become a virus and will eventually destroy ourselves by sheer numbers. Second is that we have allowed companies to grow way, way, too large. We used to have anti trust laws which prevented one company from taking over. Now we have huge banks that are allowed to buy up all their competition except the last one. They then become too large to fail and the government protects them. When I was young banks thanked you for letting them use your money. Now they try to find ways to screw you out of it. I still have a Morgan silver dollar a bank gave me when I opened a savings account with a dollar. Net cost to me $0.00. We have shitty cell phone providers and banks who rape us because there is no competition. Capitalism works when there is competition. The disregard for anti trust has led us into these times where the corporations have become so powerful that they can, and do, buy and own our government. You and I are useful to the politicians only as a means to get into office. After that we are no longer important to them and they immediately start selling their souls to the corporations who will give them suitcases of money. Look at all the politicians who have been in government for a decade or more, all of them are wealthy. Every politician should serve two terms. One in office and one in prison. Crooks 95% of them. We are able to influence them with mass protests only because they want to retain that golden seat in government and they are afraid that if they defy too many of us they will be returned to the status of ordinary citizen... like us.
  
  --
  Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
9. Re:Handing over our Rights by ATMAvatar · 2013-04-18 11:54 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The authors of the US Constitution were genius systems engineers who were far ahead of their time. From many comments I read almost daily, I suspect they remain far ahead of many in this "modern" age as well, including many if not most of the leaders of both political parties and our elected & unelected officials in the Federal Government.
  But alas, they failed to check for security holes in the design. Political parties and lobbyists have done an end-run around most of the checks built into the system.
  
  --
  "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
10. Re:Handing over our Rights by blahplusplus · 2013-04-18 13:21 · Score: 2
  
  "This should not be rocket surgery for a bunch of card-carrying Slashdot nerds and geeks, unless they've sold their geek cards to emotional rather than logical identity politics and class warfare, and abandoned logic and intellectual honesty"
  Anyone who DOESN'T believe in class warefare HAS lost their logic and intellectual honesty. My god, you are one of the historically illiterate people here. People had to fight for social security and the eight hour work day. It wasn't just handed to them by the glorious free market gods you worship.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-hour_day
  Not to mention the pro-active monitoring and co-opting of political dissent.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
90% by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-04-18 06:25 · Score: 5, Insightful

90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.
Put aside what you think about that sort of thing and ask yourself... is this the way things are supposed to work? We live a country that is supposed to be ruled by the majority (through elected officials) with respect to the rights of the minority. The legislation respected the right of the minority and then some.
The Congress is completely unhinged. They don't represent constituencies, they represent lobbyist dollars. And we see it again with CISPA.
1. Re:90% by sohmc · 2013-04-18 06:34 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The problem of ruling by the majority is that minority interests get overlooked (see gay marriage).
  The system we have in place currently is *SUPPOSED* to balance the will of the people (via election) and the morality of the elected (via legislature).
  But you are still right that we have moved passed this. The sad thing is we deserve the government we vote for. Congress has a 95% re-election rate while having a 10% approval rating. Everyone hates what Congress has become, but everyone also things it's not their reps fault.
  The only way to fix this is if EVERYONE votes out their representative, regardless of their party affiliation. We need fresh blood in there. Some of those reps won't leave until they either resign or die in office.
  
  --
  We don't live in Shouldland.
2. Re:90% by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 06:36 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Except you're wrong about the US being "Majority Rule".
  We are a Republic, and our representatives have a responsibility to ensure than legislation conforms to the Constitution (not that they actually DO do this, just saying what they're supposed to do). They, in fact, have a responsibility to NOT vote in conformance with the wishes of the public when the public is straight up =wrong=.
  Granted, there is absolutely a lot of corruption, but you are very, very mistaken that they should vote according to the public majority polls.
3. Re:90% by MyFirstNameIsPaul · 2013-04-18 06:39 · Score: 2
  
  We have too many people in each district. Thirty-Thousand.org, while they have an ancient website, does a great job explaining how the framers did not want more than 50,000 people per district. Though more focused on California, Project Represent Me does a great job at explaining the concept and why it is central to a representative democracy.
  
  --
  I once took an excursion to Reddit, and later HN. Unlimited up/down voting sucks when dealing with a hive-mind.
4. Re:90% by GameboyRMH · 2013-04-18 06:47 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  That's a republic for you, the majority doesn't have full control, elected representatives do. If they then tell the majority to fuck off and choose to enrich and empower themselves instead, and this cycle repeats forever, welp...???
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
5. Re:90% by moeinvt · 2013-04-18 06:48 · Score: 2
  
  If we had only 50K people in a district, there would be over 6000 people in the House of Reps.
  What we need is a small federal government that exercises only its specifically delegated powers, with ALL other powers being reserved to the states or to the people. You could keep districts small for the state legislatures. I wouldn't want any more A$$#0!Z in DC than we already have.
6. Re:90% by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-04-18 06:50 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  90% was the percentage of the American people that thought reasonable background checks should have been passed.
  Umm, no.
  90%+ was the percentage of people polled in Pennsylvania that agreed that "requiring background checks for all gun buyers" was a good idea.
  It was also the percentage of people polled in New Jersey and Virginia that agreed that "requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows".
  Neither of which the bill in question did. It insisted on doing bunches of other things.
  Note also that the people of New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Virginia are NOT a representative sample of the entire USA on something like gun control....
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
7. Re:90% by tnk1 · 2013-04-18 06:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Assuming that like 94.6% of the statistics out there the 90% number isn't fudged in some way, I agree that this seems off. Although, I should point out, we were very consciously made a representative democracy and not a direct one by the founders. One of the expected outcomes is that the representatives could ignore the immediate feelings of the population, becoming accountable for their actions only as a whole at election time.
  My guess is that 90% favor those checks, but not close to that many actually strongly support them. In other words, a bunch of people think it is okay to do it, but don't really care. For my part, I have no real issue with background checks per se, but I also don't see how they would have stopped any of these issues. While they *might* have dinged Lanza on mental illness, and I doubt that because he wasn't previously violent, many people who use legal firearms to kill people would easily have passed a background check of any reasonable intensity. Anyone who would not have passed the check likely knows how to get a gun from their criminal connections, or would have just stolen one.
  So ultimately, while I think that background checks are probably fine, and I would probably be counted in the 90%, they really don't concern me all that much. More to the point, they still ignore the mental health issues that cause these problems to begin with. In that way, I was sad to see that the issue was predictably turned into a gun control issue and this went down predictable lines. I think a lot of energy was basically wasted in turning this into a campaign to finally break the back of the NRA, which makes it even worse now that even that appears to have failed.
8. Re:90% by MickyTheIdiot · 2013-04-18 06:52 · Score: 2
  
  Bullshit. *Absolute* Bullshit.
  The founding fathers were rich, which is absolutely true and gets talked about ad nauseum.
  What gets forgotten today is that they were rich and individually they were scared as HELL of someone *richer* coming along and telling them what to do. They did want to rule over the poor land owners but they didn't necessarily think the richest one should lead.
9. Re:90% by GodfatherofSoul · 2013-04-18 07:13 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  That's a bit simplistic. If the system stays the same, the next guy in will vote the same way. We have to get corporate money out of DC AND campaigns. When politicians are no longer beholded to them to get reelected, they won't be subservient anymore.
  
  --
  I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
10. Re:90% by frank_adrian314159 · 2013-04-18 07:17 · Score: 2
  
  No offense intended, but you are off topic here. The article is about CISPA -- something that a majority would not want (assuming you could make them aware of it). Your shouting about not compromising the rights of the minority is superfluous in this context. Maybe if your comment was placed under an article where a minority of people were having their rights violated by a new law, it might be salient, but it's not with regards to this article.
  
  --
  That is all.
11. Re:90% by ultranova · 2013-04-18 07:23 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Secondly, I agree with the decades old problem of "my rep is fine, yours suck."
  
  Blaming other people for your problems might be just a bit older than that...
  
  --
  Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
12. Re:90% by daveime · 2013-04-18 08:42 · Score: 2
  
  something that a majority would not want
  And you know this how ? Because a handful of alarmists on Slashdot and Reddit told you so ? That's called confirmation bias, and bears no resemblance to reality.
13. Re:90% by femtobyte · 2013-04-18 12:10 · Score: 2
  
  The problem of ruling by the majority is that minority interests get overlooked (see gay marriage).
  OK; let's consider gay marriage. Marriage equality is being won in places where popular majority sentiment sides with it. I don't see cases where the tiny electoral class boldly stands up and says "well, I know 70% of our constituents are bigots, but we won't tolerate them oppressing the ~10% of society who are gay." In other words, minority interests are overlooked in either case; it still took popular majorities (not high-principled elected representatives standing against the ignorant masses) to make change.
  This seems to be a general trend: I cannot think of one case of "tyranny of the majority" when that same stance was not also strongly backed by the elites in electoral office. The idea of protecting minorities through representative legislature is simply a lie --- only on-the-ground mass movements that gather actual majority popular support make progress (even though the geographic location of the masses might be non-uniform, e.g. civil rights advances being "forced" on the South by national politicians representing "Yankee" majorities).
  Tyranny of the Majority is not a good thing; neither is Tyranny of the Minority. Placing more power in the hands of the populace (versus a tiny elected elite supposed to "protect the minority," who always turn out to be "the minority of the wealthiest and most powerful interests") can fix Tyranny of the 1%, while not exacerbating Tyranny of the Majority (which already happens anyway).
14. Re:90% by AlamedaStone · 2013-04-18 12:20 · Score: 2
  
  That might be because you were arguing for a bill that would limit our rights in the story about a bill that is going to limit our rights.
  If you want universal background checks to pass and CISPA, not to pass, you are being logically inconsistent with respect to citizen's constitutional rights.
  Please explain how applying background checks, already in place for brick-and-mortar weapon sales, to online and gunshow weapon sales limits your constitutional rights. I have yet to hear a rational, fact-based explanation to this assertion.
  
  --
  "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
Could create a Gun Owners regsitry by HaeMaker · 2013-04-18 06:27 · Score: 2, Funny

Since the gun background check bill died because it was believed it create a registry of gun owners (it didn't), since CISPA *CAN* create a registry of gun owners, it should be easily defeated in the Senate.
1. Re:Could create a Gun Owners regsitry by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-04-18 06:42 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Since the gun background check bill died because it was believed it create a registry of gun owners (it didn't)
  No, it died because it was believed that it MIGHT BE USED to create a gun owner database.
  Interestingly, where they could have put a clause in saying "It shall be unlawful to use NCIS transactions to assemble a database of gun owners", they instead put in the rather more weaselly "this law shall not be construed as allowing a database of gun owners".
  Note that there is a semantic difference between "I forbid you to do this" and "I do not give you permission to do this".
  Note also that the original NCIS law didn't allow such a database to be constructed, but BATF had to be recalibrated on the issue several times, since they kept right on trying to do it by various means.
  Also, did you actually READ that thing?? Lending my .30-06 to my best friend for a hunting trip would be a felony, but giving it to one of my wife's cousins (whom I've never met) would be perfectly fine?! And this makes sense to whom, exactly?
  
  --
  
  "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Not surprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-04-18 06:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Republicans would see the U.S changed into a society where the rich and powerful are immune to laws and everyone else is subject to monitoring 24 hours a day.
1. Re:Not surprised... by Minwee · 2013-04-18 07:50 · Score: 2
  
  Republicans would see the U.S changed into a society where the rich and powerful are immune to laws
  Ironically, such a country already exists. It's called Russia.
2. Re:Not surprised... by PeeAitchPee · 2013-04-18 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  CISPA was co-sponsored by my asshole Congressman Dutch Ruppersberger (Democrat from Maryland's 2nd District). If you think this is a partisan bill please tell me how it passed with a 2/3 majority and almost 50% of the Democrats in the House supporting it.
  Enough with the R versus D nonsense already . . . this is direct evidence that both parties fucking hate your privacy.
ONE NATION, UNDER SURVEILLANCE by Jeremiah+Cornelius · 2013-04-18 06:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

With Liberty and Justice forestalled...

--
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
so its starting to feel like by nimbius · 2013-04-18 06:39 · Score: 2

congress and senate are bayesian in nature. surely a theoretical mapping could get us a future bill that does what we want, and gets passed:
cyber: 2.0
Protection 2.0
Intelligence: 2.0
(gun|assault|weapon|magazine|clip) + ban: -2.0
terror: 5.0
freedom: 5.0
healthcare: -4.0
immigration: -2.0
reform: 2.0
and just for good measure, a few tags that appear to have some effect on the tracking and analysis process:
X-Voted-On-Before: y/n
X-Fillibstr?: y/n
Pander:1/0

--
Good people go to bed earlier.
On the other hand by DadLeopard · 2013-04-18 06:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

I think one of the reasons it did get as many votes as it did was the fact that the President promised to veto it! This way they can have their cake and eat it too!
1. Re:On the other hand by moeinvt · 2013-04-18 06:53 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately, the bill got 288 votes with 10 abstentions. They would only need 290 to get the 2/3 majority required to override a veto. I think We, The People have lost another round to the feds.
Re:How did it pass the House? by GameboyRMH · 2013-04-18 06:55 · Score: 2

The tea party's pro-transparency/anti-lobbying and small-government positions are just a small part of their overall platform, and will be ignored for all the classic neocon "good stuff" they support, like wanton deregulation, anything with a military bumper sticker on its ass and the three Gs.
If it makes any of them feel less like modding me "-1 Disagree," Obama does the same thing to scrape by with his supporters (see: Guantanamo, anything related to transparency, military accountability)

--
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Not one post about what's actually in the bill by mbstone · 2013-04-18 07:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

I looked in vain for something to mod up.
Nearly all discussion here is about the much-hyped topic of corporations possibly turning over private data on consumers to the gubmint in the name of cyber security.
While this may or may not be of concern, most of CISPA is an update to FISMA, the law that mandates how federal government information systems are acquired and what security measures are to be implemented.
So far zero on-topic discussion here.
Re:How did it pass the House? by BenSchuarmer · 2013-04-18 07:46 · Score: 2

I'm not sure who is in the Tea Party, but here's how people voted: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2013/roll117.xml
Re:Laws for the internet, no law for guns by MachineShedFred · 2013-04-18 07:57 · Score: 2

Well, there are already background checks for firearm sales through dealers (just not gun shows or private sales), it's very illegal to "spray" even one bullet "across a crowd" as this is called Attempted Murder, and depending on your definition of "high-end military hardware" that is already highly regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1945.
Your point?

--
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Pro-CISPA out-lobbied antis by 140:1 by Freddybear · 2013-04-18 08:05 · Score: 4, Informative

http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2013/pro-cispa-backers-spend-over-100-times-more-lobbying-opponents/
Interests supporting a controversial bill aimed at improving cyber security, set for a House vote Thursday, spent 140 times as much lobbying Congress as those on the other side of the debate and have dozens of former Capitol Hill insiders working on their behalf, an analysis by the Sunlight Foundation's Reporting Group shows.
Sunlight's review of lobbying disclosures from the last session of Congress in Influence Explorer shows that backers of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act had $605 million in lobbying expenditures from 2011 through the third quarter of last year compared to $4.3 million spent by opponents of the bill. While it's impossible to say how many of those dollars were devoted to trying to influence votes on the CISPA bill (many of those entities have multiple interests before Congress), it provides some measure of the lopsidedness of the resources available to each side.
Here are the lobbying totals for supporters: https://data.sunlightlabs.com/dataset/Lobbying-totals-by-CISPA-proponents/5brg-ruk9
and opponents: https://data.sunlightlabs.com/dataset/Lobbying-totals-by-CISPA-opponents/jhe8-cki6
Re:Laws for the internet, no law for guns by CrimsonAvenger · 2013-04-18 10:29 · Score: 3, Informative

there are already background checks for firearm sales through dealers (just not gun shows or private sales)
Not quite correct.
When you go to a gunshow to buy a gun, the seller (if he's a dealer) has to do the same background check he'd do in his regular shop.
The so-called "gunshow loophole" is that you can buy a gun from a private citizen at a gunshow without a background check. Which you can do without going to a gunshow too - yes, it's legal for me to sell one of my guns to someone without running a background check.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Massachusetts Didn't/Couldn't Vote by bostonidealist · 2013-04-18 14:00 · Score: 2

None of the Massachusetts delegation voted on the bill. Here is the roll call.
Why didn't any of the 9 representatives from the state vote? Because the President was in Massachusetts following a terrorist bombing earlier in the week.
The bill has been in Congress in some form since 2011. If the sponsors and supporters of the bill truly believe that this bill is necessary to enable "integrated operational actions to protect, prevent, mitigate, respond to, and recover from" threats to security, wouldn't it make sense to schedule a vote on passage of the bill for a day when at least some representatives of the state most recently victimized by a terrorist attack could vote? Is there any opportunism at work here, given that the entire Massachusetts delegation voted against the bill the last time it was up for passage?
It's worth reading the full text of the bill. It contains statements such as "The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and utilities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."