CISPA discussion (aka bitter old men try to control the internet)

Why do these things always happen when some other issue has flooded the media?

http://rt.com/usa/congress-house-bill-cispa-031/

I don't know all the details of this bill yet. All I know is this means less freedom.

From what i've read the senate will rejected, i also read somewhere that Obama will veto it. There is no reason to overreact just yet.

Once all these old men died and people who are now in their mid 20's, we won't have to worry about this shit, the current politicians are so fucking old they dont understand how this works.

you got me all scared dude. it hasnt passed yet. it still needs to go through the senate and the president.

My bad...I'm dazed from working all day. Didn't mean to cause a stir. Still, fucking scary all this shit is happening. If this passes I've lost hope for this country. I think the only thing after that is to start using the second amendment for what it was intended.

I can't edit the thread title so it will stay that way I guess.

edited title for you

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:33 AM, Deer said:

 

Once all these old men died and people who are now in their mid 20's, we won't have to worry about this shit, the current politicians are so fucking old they dont understand how this works.

What? No, they really do, or at least the scumbags do.

The current internet privacy/freedom issues were anticipated ages ago by people who thought seriously about the issue of how networks change the nature of society, conflict, etc (for example RAND reports from 15 years ago). You can bet that the govt has been preparing for a long time to mount frontal attacks on internet liberties such as CISPA. They know exactly what they're doing. They're defending themselves from annihilation, i.e. irrelevancy.

Gracias Senor. You took all the zazz out of it though.

This dick's wife stands to profit greatly from its passage. Guess who has been a strong force behind getting this this passed?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/16253022748/oh-look-rep-mike-rogers-wife-stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:51 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:33 AM, Deer said:

 

Once all these old men died and people who are now in their mid 20's, we won't have to worry about this shit, the current politicians are so fucking old they dont understand how this works.

What? No, they really do, or at least the scumbags do.

 

The current internet privacy/freedom issues were anticipated ages ago by people who thought seriously about the issue of how networks change the nature of society, conflict, etc (for example RAND reports from 15 years ago). You can bet that the govt has been preparing for a long time to mount frontal attacks on internet liberties such as CISPA. They know exactly what they're doing. They're defending themselves from annihilation.

 

I dont buy that, i mean look at this guy ? do you think he understand how the internet works?

Sure governments around the world are shivering at how powerful the internet is, but first world governments like the US gov will find a way to use the internet to their advantage without taking the freedom away, that why the Obama administration will veto this bill, because they seem to be younger and more with it than these old school fucking republicans.

If Obama is doing a good job of protecting our rights then why did the NDAA happen? Why did the Monsanto Protection Act happen?

"During debate on the senate floor, Levin stated that "Administration officials reviewed the draft language for this provision and recommended additional changes. We were able to accommodate those recommendations, except for the Administration request that the provision apply only to detainees captured overseas and there's a good reason for that. Even here, the difference is modest, because the provision already excludes all U.S. citizens. It also excludes lawful residents of U.S., except to extent permitted by the constitution. The only covered persons left are those who are illegally in this country or on a tourists/short-term basis. Contrary to some press statements, the detainee provisions in our bill do not include new authority for the permanent detention of suspected terrorists. Rather, the bill uses language provided by the Administration to codify existing authority that has been upheld in federal courts."^[34]"

Can I get a fact check on this?

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:55 AM, Deer said:

 

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:51 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:33 AM, Deer said:

 

Once all these old men died and people who are now in their mid 20's, we won't have to worry about this shit, the current politicians are so fucking old they dont understand how this works.

What? No, they really do, or at least the scumbags do.

 

The current internet privacy/freedom issues were anticipated ages ago by people who thought seriously about the issue of how networks change the nature of society, conflict, etc (for example RAND reports from 15 years ago). You can bet that the govt has been preparing for a long time to mount frontal attacks on internet liberties such as CISPA. They know exactly what they're doing. They're defending themselves from annihilation.

 

 

Sure governments around the world are shivering at how powerful the internet is, but first world governments like the US gov will find a way to use the internet to their advantage without taking the freedom away

 

How?

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

If Obama is doing a good job of protecting our rights then why did the NDAA happen? Why did the Monsanto Protection Act happen?

I don't think he is working on protecting freedoms, i think his administration will veto this bill because they understand how powerful the internet is, they know if he signs this bill a shit storm will come his way.

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:57 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:55 AM, Deer said:

 

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:51 AM, Joseph said:

 

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:33 AM, Deer said:

 

Once all these old men died and people who are now in their mid 20's, we won't have to worry about this shit, the current politicians are so fucking old they dont understand how this works.

What? No, they really do, or at least the scumbags do.

 

The current internet privacy/freedom issues were anticipated ages ago by people who thought seriously about the issue of how networks change the nature of society, conflict, etc (for example RAND reports from 15 years ago). You can bet that the govt has been preparing for a long time to mount frontal attacks on internet liberties such as CISPA. They know exactly what they're doing. They're defending themselves from annihilation.

 

 

Sure governments around the world are shivering at how powerful the internet is, but first world governments like the US gov will find a way to use the internet to their advantage without taking the freedom away

 

How?

 

I don't know, maybe try to integrate government and technology,maybe design/buy a reddit-type website that becomes the ultimate information-sharing website and control what information people get.

  On 4/19/2013 at 5:01 AM, Deer said:

I don't know, maybe try to integrate government and technology,maybe design/buy a reddit-type website that becomes the ultimate information-sharing website and control what information people get.

lol

  On 4/19/2013 at 4:48 AM, chenGOD said:

edited title for you

lol nice repzazz

If I had a $1 for every-time people thought suggested Obama was going to veto this type of bill, and then signed it into law I'd have about $20 by now.

the NDAA was an ultra bizarre move on his part, because he SAID he was going to veto it, but then signed it into law literally on new years eve and then wrote a strange diatribe after signing it about how he promises not to use the parts in that people were so upset by. wtf? What about when you leave office bro? Who gives a fuck if you 'promise' not to use it, what about the president after you and why should we trust you in the first place? You've kept a fucking GULAG open for over 4 years

​the real issue is the government doesn't need to 'control' the internet when companies like Google, and Microsoft (who now own Skype) will hand over whatever 'private' information they want, often times with no warrant whatsoever. The people who want this passed are the corporations who want to stop file sharing. And they've effectively used the FBI and branches of the US government to do dirty work for them, raiding Kim.com halfway across the world, etc. By the way that happened the day after the last internet control bill did not pass, but nooooo, that wasn't used to send a 'message' at all.

  On 4/19/2013 at 8:08 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

If I had a $1 for every-time people thought suggested Obama was going to veto this type of bill, and then signed it into law I'd have about $20 by now.

 

the NDAA was an ultra bizarre move on his part, because he SAID he was going to veto it, but then signed it into law literally on new years eve and then wrote a strange diatribe after signing it about how he promises not to use the parts in that people were so upset by. wtf? What about when you leave office bro? Who gives a fuck if you 'promise' not to use it, what about the president after you and why should we trust you in the first place? You've kept a fucking GULAG open for over 4 years

 

​the real issue is the government doesn't need to 'control' the internet when companies like Google, and Microsoft (who now own Skype) will hand over whatever 'private' information they want, often times with no warrant whatsoever. The people who want this passed are the corporations who want to stop file sharing. And they've effectively used the FBI and branches of the US government to do dirty work for them, raiding Kim.com halfway across the world, etc. By the way that happened the day after the last internet control bill did not pass, but nooooo, that wasn't used to send a 'message' at all.

I'm curious about what exactly the deal with the NDAA is, because if you look at the excerpt I posted earlier the language seems hazy. Is it just some legal mess that is open to interpretation or is this stuff clearly defined?

The Obama administration apparently thinks that what laws literally say doesn't matter as long as the president has the right intentions. Of course, that's horseshit, and they're lying.

Don't let any apparent vagueness fool you. The NDAA on paper turns the USA into the civil liberties equivalent of Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. The key part is section 1021 allowing indefinite detention of any US citizen without trial.

Its so insane that you may actually fail IRL to convince people who haven't heard of it that it exists. I know from experience.