Slashdot Mirror
CISPA's Author Has Another Privacy-Killing Bill To Pass Before He Retires
Daniel_Stuckey writes: "You might remember House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, from his lovely, universally-hated CISPA cybersecurity bill that would have allowed nearly seamless information sharing between companies and the federal government. You might also remember him from his c'est la vie attitude towards civil liberties in general. Well, we've got some good news and some bad news: Rogers announced today that he won't seek re-election and is instead retiring from politics to start a conservative talk radio show on Cumulus. The bad news? He's got at least one terrible, civil liberties-killing bill to try to push through Congress before he goes. Like CISPA, the newly introduced 'FISA Transparency and Modernization Act,' seeks to make it easier for the federal government to get your information from companies."
I just hope the voters in his Dist. see fit to vote for someone that believes more in the constitution.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A Republican, you say? So we're back to posting party affiliations prominently in the summaries?
Might as well - you know half the comments will be about party affiliation anyway, and then a bunch of comments will be about whether it's really this government's fault, or the one before it, etc.
Also, while politicians are annoying, talk show hosts can be much worse. If successful, he could pollute, I mean sway, the mind of quite a few people and get his way in the end without needing to be a politician.
....makes me giggle.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Yeah, the rightwing party proposes a fascist law, damn, that's shocking, must be media bias!
to start a conservative talk radio show
It amazes me how, in this day and age, a demonstrably-fascist douchebag like this asshole can disguise his obvious big-government, Hamiltonian (i.e. classic textbook "liberal") nature by calling himself "conservative." Then again, considering how dumbed-down and ignorant the populace has become, I guess it should come as no surprise that the electorate (particularly the senile, white-haired contingent) has absolutely no idea what "conservative" is supposed to mean. Hint: it's correct usage (at least in America English; it has an altogether different meaning in the UK/Europe) implies that one is in favor of Jeffersonian ideals, which run completely counter to Alexander Hamilton's Federalist (i.e. "liberal") beliefs...
Why does every one of these people campaign on a platform of "government is the problem, reduce the size of the government!", and then once in office, immediately create bills that INCREASE the size of government, pry into your personal life such as who you sleep with, and if you're a woman, even when you can have sex, and generally make it so that government *is* indeed the problem because *they* made it so?
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
We welcome him with a lot of calls. Remember to be nice to the prescreeners.
Make it sound good to the people.
Forget that we are reducing transparency, not enhancing.
So you don't mind posting your CC numbers here, right? Because it's illegal for anyone else to use them it shouldn't matter to you.
Yeah, the rightwing party proposes a fascist law, damn, that's shocking, must be media bias!
It is, because it ignores the fact that members of the "leftwing party" also propose (and vote for) fascist laws all.
The.
Time.
Intellectual dishonesty at best, outright propaganda at worst.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That ruse doesn't work on me. Go find another corner to evangelize that nonsense.
Aside from that, if I prevent you from using it, I would post it.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This Slashdot article...
""You might remember House Intelligence Chair Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan, from his lovely, universally-hated CISPA cybersecurity bill that would have allowed nearly seamless information sharing between companies and the federal government."
Or this one...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/...
"Several readers sent word that California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today. He's accused of conspiring to traffic guns and commit wire fraud, to defraud citizens of honest services, and bribery. The complant (PDF) also names 25 other defendants. Yee is known for pushing legislation that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors. "Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."
Here's a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...
when people who claim to be conservatives are front and center in efforts to invade people's privacy or their lives in general.
Whether this situation, the banning of books at libraries, abortion or anything other matter involving one's personal freedoms, conservatives seem to go out of their way to be hypocrites when talking about freedom.
I guess it's easier to talk the talk than it is to walk the walk.
Sort of like when businesses decry government regulation or intrusion into their practices then turn around and come to the taxpayer asking for money.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
So we have the Republicans how act like Daddy and tells you what is morally correct and tries to force it with laws. Then we have Mommy Democrats who tells you how to behave with others and spend your money. How about we get a 3rd party (maybe a few) that agree to stay out of or personal and finacial lives.
I cant see any reason we need to make it easier for companies to turn metadata or straight up personal data to the government. And both parties fall over themselves when it comes to self serving federal laws.
And for those people complain that a libertarian party are the ones who would allow EPA disasters, schools to go unfunded, no fire/police departments are just using scare tactics to keep the status quo. So damn simple... Keep the gov outta our personal, private and capitalist transactions. Why is this so hard to understand?
Rogers and his ilk just like peeking at their neighbors. When he retires from politics and moves back home, make certain you don't leave your curtains open. He probably has a telescope.
Have gnu, will travel.
Just remember - you need both a left wing and a right wing to make the turkey fly.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
And they say Snowden is the bad guy! Sheesh!
"Mike Rogers, a Republican from Michigan" is the one (of several, no doubt) that should be tried for treason, not Snowden.
I'm starting to feel like America just needs to get their act together and kill off the people who want to ruin things from the top. Peacefully protesting and lobbying against this guy obviously haven't worked, but a rope will.
Just remember - you need both a left wing and a right wing to make the turkey fly.
Ha; best summation of American politics.
Ever.
Of all time.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
TFA acknowledges that the bill is pretty much a big list of things the government will not be allowed to do, aka smaller government.
The summary is largely a lie (shocking, I know). The article takes issue with the fact that among all of the restrictions it puts on the government, it also repeats one phrase in existing law as it adds more restrictions to that phrase.
Current law is that the intelligence agency can get [spy on foreign persons] if they have a "reasonable and articulable suspicion". This bill says that even with "reasonable and articulable suspicion", it still must follow fourth amendment guidelines, must not be triggered by aything protected by the first amendment, must not include the contents of any communication (only metadata), etc. The author of TFA is making a big deal about the fact that the bill mentions "reasonable and articulable suspicion", but that's ALREADY current law. This bill adds restrictions to such inquiries.
Yea, good thing it was never said by anyone talking sanely that we are here to take your guns.
Knowing who owns what guns is important, and keeping it of people who cannot be responsible. Gun ownership is a right, not a privilege and those people freaking out about any attempt to regulate guns do not understand that.
They need to be able to use it against you in court. It's just a formality.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
There is nothing socialist at all about a law making it mandatory to give our money to private insurance companies.
That would explain the incompetence.
Or providing emergency medical services even when you haven't.
few months ago watching "The Anderson Tapes" (early 1970s) and near end of movie police searching building for more robbery suspects find some equipment tapped into some of the buildings phone lines. Senior officer says, "whoever set this up better have a warrant!" Later the 'snoops' that have been tracking character played by Sean Connery erased and purged all the tapes of conversations they recorded because they could get in big trouble as none of it was authorized by the courts. Fast forward to these days, meh, that kind of storyline is totally ridiculous. There are other such movies back in the days when people did respect legalities of wiretapping and eavesdropping. Of course there were shenanigans played out by some govt agencies but they knew they were doing wrong so they had to cover it up. These days, they don't because "it's ok."
mfwright@batnet.com
As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly! :)
keywords turkey helicopter and thanks giving if you don't get the reference.
Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
Well that is socialist, but wasn't that the way it used to be.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
How do you fight for anything. I haven't seen you gun toters out there protecting anything, I see you out there saying having a discussion about gun control being unconstitutional.
Stop acting like you have done ANYTHING heroic in the fights for civil rights of an kind. All our wins have been from NON VIOLENCE.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
As opposed to the left forcing a socialist "health" law down our throats?
If only it actually were a socialist law. The big problem with the bill in question is that it's pretty much the exact same, essentially fascist, law originally proposed by the Republicans. If it were actually socialist it wouldn't shy away from the concept of a public option.
Thank you Les, for your on the spot coverage of today's horrendous catastrophe.
(I loved that scene, and have quoted it a few times in other forums as well. ;^) )
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I'm not the one freaking out about guns, you apparently are.
Look at the text of the Amendment. The operative part is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If you are saying I'm not allowed to buy a gun unless you know about that, you are infringing on my right to keep it and bear it. Therefore your law does not follow the Constitution. If you can't accept that, get a new Amendment passed that invalidates the Second Amendment. Then you have the authority to whatever the hell you want.
Until then, kindly go fuck yourself.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
"Left wing party"? Since when does America have one of those?
We've got the right-wing party, and the even-more-right-wing party.
If you are saying I'm not allowed to buy a gun unless you know about that, you are infringing on my right to keep it and bear it.
That ship done sailed, ran aground, got scuttled, knocked over by a wave, crushed by a kraken and sank. The government tracks everything else, and now they came for your guns and you're wondering why there's no one left to stand up for you.
Aside from that, if I prevent you from using it, I would post it.
This sounds like an admission that it is impossible to control how another person or organization uses information once they have it, but you apparently consider that control a necessary requirement for the open sharing of information proposed by Mr. Roger's law. The inability to actually control the use of information once shared or collected is exactly why so many people oppose such sharing.
When you say "I don't care about sharing information; it should flow freely" you sound like you are in favor of sharing and collecting information among institutions, despite the fact that it is impossible to impose any controls more powerful than administrative and legal policy. It makes you look like a troll.
...it is impossible to control how another person or organization uses information once they have it...
Difficult, not impossible. Looks like we have a big job ahead of us. But since we don't have privacy, let's go for the next best thing, total transparency. Let's put the authorities into the same glass house they're putting us in.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I really don't care. They won't see any data from my users anyway, because I am building services around decentralized user data.
Tell that to Malcolm X. Various people in the civil rights movement disagreed with King on that issue.
OTOH, all those guys you see toting around open-carry rifles and pistols, campaigning for their rights, aren't committing any violence. They are being arrested and harrassed by the police, having hurt no one.
hence the "scare" quotes.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Conviction of a cime historically is a basis for suspending the rights of the offender. First of all, the offender usually loses his right to freedom, since he gets locked up. At this point, he usually loses his right to vote too. Upon release, many rights are still restricted, such as freedom of movement while on parole. Voting and gun rights can remain restricted.
However, there certainly should be a mechanism to proclaim someone rehabilitated and regain his voting and gun rights. Once off probation, voting rights shouldn't be affected anymore. I know someone who as a dumb young man was convicted in the 1960s and lost his gun rights. He's pushing 70 now, and is a danger to no one, yet he can't buy a gun.
Mental illness is definitely another issue though. However, it has been long accepted that a narrowly tailored law that is the least restrictive means to address a definite issue can survive even strict scrutiny when it comes to restricting a constitutional right. So someone who has been declared a danger by a competent medical professional could be denied possession of guns, subject to the ability of that person to appeal, to be examined by alternate medical professionals, and to have regular reviews of his status. You'll have a hard time finding a pro-gun person who disagrees with this.
We shouldn't fund people for transportation to voting places, we shouldn't fund them to acquire guns, we shouldn't give them free printing presses. It's a right you have -- it doesn't have to be provided for you. However, it should be unconstitutional for the government to make firearms more expensive than necessary, or to ban less expensive firearms so that the poor can afford them. The government has done both.