Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > cispa

cispa
Thread Tools
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 21, 2012, 09:13 PM
 
Do you think Congress realizes the Internet shot its wad on SOPA and PIPA? They seem oddly willing to play ball.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 22, 2012, 11:27 PM
 
Oddly? There's a lot of lobbyists pushing them along.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 23, 2012, 07:03 AM
 
There were lobbyists pushing against SOPA and PIPA, and congress called them big fat pirate whiners.

Right up until they realized actual voters seemed to care and they folded like a house of cards.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 10:10 AM
 
Someone clued them in. They just rushed it through the House, it passed, and has this added "limiting provision":

Quayle (AZ), Eshoo (CA), Thompson, Mike (CA), Broun (GA): Would limit government use of shared cyber threat information to only 5 purposes: 1) cybersecurity; 2) investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; 3) protection of individuals from the danger of death or physical injury; 4) protection of minors from physical or psychological harm; and 5) protection of the national security of the United States. (10 minutes)
Which I'll note is far less limiting than the original bill.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 10:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Right up until they realized actual voters seemed to care and they folded like a house of cards.
It wasn't voters Congress has bowed to, but pressure from the Internet Economy (Google et al) which was big enough to kill the bills. If al that happened was an outcry of »pirates and nerds«, I don't think anyone would have cared enough to stop SOPA/PIPA.

Regarding CISPA, I hope the President vetoes the bill.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 10:41 AM
 
Google's a touch nerdy, but I get what you're saying.

Likewise, SOPA/PIPA did actually threaten the Internet itself, while this only targets the poor schmucks who feel like using the Internet.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 10:44 AM
 
I'd start using TOR if there weren't teams of DoJ goons scanning every byte in triplicate.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 12:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Google's a touch nerdy, but I get what you're saying.
I wish I was just very cynical, but wrong about this point. However, the lack of a public outcry when it comes to CISPA makes me think my conjecture that is was other parts of the economy which killed SOPA/PIPA rather than »the people«. :/
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Likewise, SOPA/PIPA did actually threaten the Internet itself, while this only targets the poor schmucks who feel like using the Internet.
Agreed. It's despicable what kind of laws governments have in mind, and all in the name of »security«. The worst thing is that many of these »great« ideas actually get exported into other countries when crafting similar laws.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 12:58 PM
 
I'm bothered by the security angle, but the protect the children part is off the reservation entirely.

That could be interpreted to mean almost anything, and has different local opinions of what constitutes it. How is the DoJ supposed to fairly adjudicate that?
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 01:36 PM
 
Protect minors from physical or pyschological harm?

So if someone tells little Timmy to jump in a lake or young Tammy she's ugly, the Feds can go all up in said person's digital rectum?

It seems like so many of these Congressmen don't even take their jobs remotely seriously. I'm surprised they didn't go the whole way by inserting the child-related root password to the Constitution in this work of genius.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 02:01 PM
 
Just the language used by supporters of the bill makes me nauseous (taken from here):
Originally Posted by Mike Rogers (R-Michigan, author of the bill)
Stand for America! Support this bill!
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
olePigeon
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 27, 2012, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Just the language used by supporters of the bill makes me nauseous nauseated (taken from here):
Fixed.
"…I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than
you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods,
you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 28, 2012, 11:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I'm bothered by the security angle, but the protect the children part is off the reservation entirely.

That could be interpreted to mean almost anything, and has different local opinions of what constitutes it. How is the DoJ supposed to fairly adjudicate that?
That's exactly what I thought. The first bits while bothersome, at least express some goal or specificity whereas the provision for protecting children psychologically is way too broad. Is this some measure against cyber-bullying? Like you said, this could encompass literally anything.
ebuddy
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 29, 2012, 01:51 PM
 
I read in passing there are four other cybersecurity bills floating around.

I'm honestly so fatigued by this I can't even be bothered to look it up and post a cite.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:51 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,