Cispa is back

[Xenn]

This still has to go through the Senate, so I wouldn't panic so much just yet.

 

Considering the Senate killed CISPA last year, there's a good chance it may happen again.

 

Also the veto threat, gonna be hard to get this into law i'd say.

[Tani Coyote]

This still has to go through the Senate, so I wouldn't panic so much just yet.

 

Considering the Senate killed CISPA last year, there's a good chance it may happen again.

 

Also the veto threat, gonna be hard to get this into law i'd say.

 

From what I read, it died in the Senate primarily because it was at the bottom of their priority list; that is, the Congress adjourned before they could address it.

 

If it gets addressed this time, given the Democratic majority I'm strongly doubting it'll come close to the two-thirds margin that would need to be built to ram it down Obama's throat.

 

Not to be overly partisan, but I think we won't need to worry about CISPA, SOPA or any other similar violation of privacy until we get a Republican government again. Which isn't likely given how each year the GOP's closer to the fringe.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

From what I read, it died in the Senate primarily because it was at the bottom of their priority list; that is, the Congress adjourned before they could address it.

 

If it gets addressed this time, given the Democratic majority I'm strongly doubting it'll come close to the two-thirds margin that would need to be built to ram it down Obama's throat.

 

Not to be overly partisan, but I think we won't need to worry about CISPA, SOPA or any other similar violation of privacy until we get a Republican government again. Which isn't likely given how each year the GOP's closer to the fringe.

Well I'm still keeping my guard up, never know what those dirty bastards might try to pull under our noses...

[Tani Coyote]

Well I'm still keeping my guard up, never know what those dirty bastards might try to pull under our noses...

 

Oh, an ever vigilant citizenry is something the Founders were very fond of. A democracy's only as good as those who participate in it, so it makes sense to keep a constant watch on their activities. It's why closed doors meetings arouse so much suspicion; if it's not for national security purposes, what could they be hiding? That doesn't sound like a people's government at all. It sounds like something an oligarchy would do so the masses don't get upset at their plans.

 

Political philosophy aside, it's always a good idea to be ready to blow the whistle on the state's activities. They always try to sneak stuff past us but fortunately someone leaks it, rancor ensues, and then they quietly drop the subject.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Make your urgings here: http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/CISPA_senate_2013/?akid=2133.745446.LxSS84&rd=1&t=1

[Tani Coyote]

I signed it.

 

I'm going to keep an eye on Harry Reid, though, and will be voting against him next time he's up if he doesn't behave.

 

So IBM, Intel, Verizon and AT&T are the primary backers of this bill, it seems.

 

Well drat, that puts me in a conflict of interest. I love AT&T and Verizon as a stock in my portfolio due to their high dividend rates. But at the same time I can't really condone this sort of behavior...

 

...but provided their agenda can never gain ground in Congress, I suppose I can reconcile the two. Tough decision.

[Clouder]

So IBM, Intel, Verizon and AT&T are the primary backers of this bill, it seems.

Hmm... IBM, the creator of the supercomputer Watson is suporting this? Maybe they're trying to save people's info from their computers so they don't take over the world.

 

[Skyward Sword]

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/04/25/aclu-cispa-is-dead-for-now

 

...aaaand it looks like it's dead again. Thank god.

[Tani Coyote]

You stir up the bee's nest enough and the slimeballs on Capitol Hill will fall over each other trying to avoid being stung.

 

Good it didn't pass. If they want to refine our national security in such a manner it still requires the warrants the Constitution specifies (for good reason if you know what life under Britain was like), that's fine, but that kind of unrestricted information sharing is just ridiculous. It's pretty obvious the companies would have sold all the information to the state at some point.

 

If the government wants to acquire information on an individual from a company, they should have to get a warrant from the Courts. If they want a company to take a specific action, they should have to secure an injunction. This is all fairly standard and this "information sharing" stuff is ludicrous in its proportions.