House Passes CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Despite Warnings from White House

CISPA was reintroduced. Have fun getting shot down again, CISPA.

• Source: The Guardian
• Published: 4/18/2013

 

So the government doesn't want to put up a background check and all that for guns, and yet they're going to go through the trouble of this bill? Am I the only one that sees something wrong with that? Not too mention, did they seriously use the Boston bombing as a reference? Jeez, seems like that's in bad taste to me

 

If this is a point of contention between the HoR and the White House, hopefully it won't be too hard to get it shot down. Especially with the garbage its proponents are slinging.

What is this, the 80's? Are people seriously still allowed to make asinine comments like this? Rogers is the only retro stereotype here: that of the crotchety old politician who's out of touch with reality.

I'm actually just gonna borrow something from the Spamzone, because that's as seriously as I intend to take this guy.

[url

 

It's disappointing to see the House pass CISPA (again) but the Senate still needs to put it through, and even then, President Obama has threatened a veto. I've faith that it will be defeated, it's a ridiculous proposal.

 

They're politicians, they aim low when they want to. If they don't want a bill passed, they don't mention a school shooting nor the fact that the NRA is giving them millions of dollars in support every election. I didn't just say that.

If they want a bill passed, they aim as low as they can. The Boston Bombings for them are as low as you can go without mentioning 9/11 which would probably incite a riot. As for the comment on people living in their basement doing this, I find it quite insulting. The Senate needs to learn about computers and the modern age, like the price of milk (Sorry, no more jokes.) before they go onto an attack about "cyberterrorism".

I'm guessing that this is another chance at SOPA, I think that's how you spell it. Where the government controls what's posted online. The government finds out about some "sites" they have a right to remove it. Hell, look at all the stuff that was passed after 9/11 that was supposed to "protect" us. Though admittedly some did, it became a massive headache for a lot of poorer people to get things.

That's just my thoughts, though.

 

Yet another attempt? I'm sorry but the day businesses start giving out my personal information to the government is the day I quit doing business. It's bad enough the government has to know anything and everything about what you're doing at all times . . . wait, so what's the difference here?

Never mind. Point is, I won't just sit back and let my information go to any and every greedy money grubbing politician who wants to know what I'm doing. If this makes it through, it's going to be a big mistake on the governments part. Honestly, I don't see the President letting it through though. I think this Bill isn't going to get passed, but if it does the consequences would more than likely be severe. All the computer nerds professionals would get outraged. Not only them, but anyone who is doing business with a company. I don't think anyone wants their confidential information to be handed out so easily. I know I don't.

 

Actually maybe you should have paused to think it through : what' s the difference indeed ?

The thing is, ISPs and on-line social services already give or sell our informations to whoever is ready to pay for it. It' s a more or less implicit part of our deal with them, each and every one of us tacitly agreed to it (whether we even bothered reading the fine prints or not). Most of those services are free, in and of itself that should already warn you that you' re the merchandise in their business.

What' s the point of clinging to a privacy you never had to begin with ? Not to mention the people who howl at privacy and paste their entire life on blogs, Facebook and whatnot in the same move, I mean come on ... eat the cake, have the cake and get a date with the baker' s daughter much ?

Point is, whoever wants to spy on you can already do it, provided the know-how. Hell, the lack of privacy is precisely what the writers of that bill are complaining about :

The only full-proof way that I know to retain privacy on the internet is ... to not use it.

So no, I don' t mind them sharing their information with the government, at least not on principle. The only way for me to become more than an anonymous blip on their radar would be to do something illegal. Which is the heart of the issue here for me : what exactly would they define as illegal ? The answer to that question would decide whether I' m for or against it.

On a side note, I don' t live in a country whose government can ignore the legal burden of proof entirely whenever the hell it sees fit, as opposed to the US, which tremendously helps my williingness to let it have information on me.

 

You know I love how the US passing any of these bills will effectively affect everyone online, not just US citizens but the rest of the world doesn't really have a say in it.

 

I'm not one of the people who writes their entire life story online, those people don't have privacy in the first place. I'd like to know, however, that any information I share with a legitimate business isn't going to be handed over to the government without a damn good reason. Should I be doing something "illegal" then yes, it's best my information gets handed over. I'd like to know my information isn't being given out because they want to know what kind of vegetables I'm buying.

It's the principle of the matter. If you're fine with having your information shared with the government that's all well and good, I'm not. I don't trust my government as far as I can throw them. And consecutively, considering everyone within the government, that wouldn't be very far at all. If I'm doing something that's illegal then yea, sure, I'd be happy to know that anyone plotting to do something bad could be brought to justice swiftly. But I don't want every individual with a job in the government to know what kind of music I like, what kind of shows I watch, and all that.

Of course, they'd mostly only see ponies and anime >.> That's besides the point. The only information I give out online is my email address. I don't use my real address either. I use my alias email account. I used to not even give out my name online. I'm kind of a security freak. If companies want to share my info with marketing or whatever, fine. It only takes two clicks to clean out my inbox.

 

Wh ... why would anyone in the government give a flying **** about your vegetables ? We' re not talking about making that database available to anyone who asks for it just to go all ...

On a side note, if that' s what you' re afraid of then consider what google offers you (google earth) then ask yourself what' s the military version of it. Don' t let the bedbugs bite. ^^

More realistically that (probably utterly boring) information would only be made available to policing entities who' d be monitored and held accountable. If they ask transparency from us then surely they won' t be surprised if we expect transparency from them.

You said it yourself, you' re already sharing all sorts of informations with your government, this wouldn' t be treated any differently.

Wait ... why would you trust a private company to handle it any better than the government? Especially when nothing holds them to transparency ? How is that less potentially creepy ? I' m afraid using an alternate mailbox doesn' t exactly fool them.

What you' re afraid of is already a reality, with or without CISPA.

 

It's not really news to me, I already believe the government is monitoring us 24/7. I'm paranoid enough as it is. I don't like the thought of being under constant surveillance. I'd like to at least know that every last morsel, every single trace of my being on the internet isn't being monitored. Of course, as you say, that's probably already happening anyway. I guess I'd rather it just be done in secret rather than telling me straight up "You're information is being monitored 24/7, be warned."

I'd just as soon the bill didn't get passed. That's just how I feel about it.

 

If the government was monitoring everyone on everything that they did, there'd be a lot of piracy websites that have already been taken down. Hell, I could name five off the top of my head that would be taken down as I type these words. And before you say: "Freedom of Speech" I know at least one website that is extremely famous for all of it's piracy that has been removed.

The Government wants you to think they're in control of your lives. Especially after 9/11 terrorism attacks, they want to make sure you know they're watching you. Are they? Most likely not, if they did, they're doing a really poor job at it. Taking back to the Boston bombing, and no, I won't use this as they did and apologize in advance if I offend, the bombers most likely found a way to make bombs on a website if not a terrorist camp. There are many, there are probably a lot of school incidents that happen from the same websites. Do you honestly think that if the Internet was controlled all along even since a few years ago they'd find some way to censor this info?

I once told my mom: The Internet has everything on it that anyone can think/dream of. Everything. Unless you're in a country where it's severely censored, you can find anything without any consequence unless you're a little kid/teenager who googles the wrong thing when your parents walk in, you can look up anything without worry that the Government will come storming into your home at three am in the morning.

The only thing that is a worry right now is people hacking INTO your internet connection. And I have about five safeties on that. They want to change it and I still am against it. There's always going to be threats.

Get a better damned security system, hell I bet Ebay has a better security system than the Federal Government. Though you didn't hear that from me.

 

^ This, pretty much. They can only put a few people to the task, your whole life wouldn' t suffice just to get through today' s data.

Just because the government has information on you doesn' t mean someone will actually read it. Not unless you give them a reason to by being involved in something illegal that someone complained about. Basically it' s the same as the data they already have on you, unless your name pops up in an investigation no one will bother looking through it.