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."

Comments

Good Riddance...

[cayenne8]

â¦I'll be SOOO happy to see this privacy hating fuck-tard off of the sunday morning shows.

I just hope the voters in his Dist. see fit to vote for someone that believes more in the constitution.

Republican

[RoccamOccam]

A Republican, you say? So we're back to posting party affiliations prominently in the summaries?

Re:Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, he's a conservative, Republican and former FBI employee. That should complete the description of his politics enough to let anyone understand that his motivations should be questionable if you want to see your civil liberties protected.

Re:Republican

[fustakrakich]

Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government. We should hold them to it.

Re:Republican

[wonkey_monkey]

It seems merely informative to me.

Re:Republican

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn right! The republicans are always clamoring for "limited" government.

They only want 'limited' on things that sound like socialism -- you know, you how maintain a society.

For things like the army, or surveillance, or ensuring that their buddies at the golf course get the monopolies entrenched and copyright extended indefinitely ... then Republicans basically spend like drunken monkeys.

If it benefits big business, they'll roll over for it. If it benefits the poor or the working class, it is therefore 'evil'.

The fact their claims about trickle down economics haven't had any of the benefits they claim it will means that Republicans are either delusional, or know damned well they're taking the rest of the country for a ride.

Because they damned sure don't have a clue about what actually does help improve the economy.

Re:Nice Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the rightwing party proposes a fascist law, damn, that's shocking, must be media bias!

Conservative??

[Type44Q]

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...

Re:Conservative??

[shizzle]

That was pretty blathery, not to mention one-sided. There's a lot I could disagree with, but the thing that sticks out the most is that you've provided no evidence that liberals hate big government. It's true that liberals hate some things that government does, like being the aggressor in a foreign war, or acting corruptly, but the general response from liberals is simply to make noise to try and get the government to stop doing things. But in general liberals see the government as a force for good, so more of it tends to be better, as long as the "right people" (i.e., other liberals) are in charge to prevent it from doing the things they don't like.

In contrast, conservatives have a principled opposition to big government, in that they recognize that government will never completely stop doing bad things, and is in a uniquely coercive position to maximize the impact of those bad things (like putting you in jail if it doesn't like you), and thus the best way to limit the damage it does is to limit its size.

Of course, the actions of politicians who claim the labels of "liberal" and "conservative" don't necessarily correlate with these positions, and the attitudes of individuals who label themselves as such (like yourself) may also differ. However, I believe these philosophical attitudes toward the size of government are much more in line with most people's views, as well as the common understanding of the terms, than the ones you put forth.

Rebublican Conservative??

[tekrat]

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?

Re:Rebublican Conservative??

[Jason Levine]

For three reasons:

1) Each party is actually in favor of reducing government but in different areas. So Party A decries Party B's expansion of government into area X while themselves increasing government in area Y. And vice versa.

2) When someone is trying to get into government, they rail about how government is the problem. Once they get into the government, though, they don't want to give up that power. So they instead try to use that power to "solve problems." Thus more government intrusion in our lives. (Which they will continue to campaign against. See #3.)

3) What a politician campaigns for/against and what they are actually going to do when the vote rolls around are two very different things. Sometimes they might align, but all too often they will be highly different.

Re:Nice Summary

[CanHasDIY]

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.

Can you spot the Democrat?

[the_skywise]

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...

I always find it interesting. . .

[smooth wombat]

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.

Just a pervert at heart

[PPH]

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.

Re: Nice Summary

[TehZorroness]

There is nothing socialist at all about a law making it mandatory to give our money to private insurance companies.

Re:Nice Summary

[artor3]

"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.