CISPA passed 248 to 168 in House

re: Amash

Uhm, wot? He didn't even vote for the bill. And I'm pretty sure he hasn't endorsed Romney.

Amash voted no. And I haven't heard a thing about who he's endorsed, if anyone. I follow him pretty closely b/c I'm looking to possibly move to his district.
 
One yea and one not voting in heavily internet dependent and ACLU friendly HI. :rolleyes:

:mad:

Days like this I say let it all crash.
 
If there's one silver lining it is that the government is still a minority.
This will just drive more people to encrypted networks like Tor.
They will probably try to make services like that illegal under this law, but they will be powerless to enforce it.
Like marijuana, they may catch a few careless ones here and there, but they will never have the manpower or efficiency to put a dent in its overall use.
 
Ugg my congressman and I think all Republicans in my state voted yes..Lots of work still here to do
 
Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote

Up until this afternoon, the final vote on CISPA was supposed to be tomorrow. Then, abruptly, it was moved up today—and the House voted in favor of its passage with a vote of 248-168. But that's not even the worst part.

The vote followed the debate on amendments, several of which were passed. Among them was an absolutely terrible change (pdf and embedded below—scroll to amendment #6) to the definition of what the government can do with shared information, put forth by Rep. Quayle. Astonishingly, it was described as limiting the government's power, even though it in fact expands it by adding more items to the list of acceptable purposes for which shared information can be used. Even more astonishingly, it passed with a near-unanimous vote. The CISPA that was just approved by the House is much worse than the CISPA being discussed as recently as this morning.

Previously, CISPA allowed the government to use information for "cybersecurity" or "national security" purposes. Those purposes have not been limited or removed. Instead, three more valid uses have been added: investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crime, protection of individuals, and protection of children. Cybersecurity crime is defined as any crime involving network disruption or hacking, plus any violation of the CFAA.

Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power.

Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite. This is very, very bad.

There were some good amendments adopted too—clarifying some definitions...


Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...t-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml
 
The fact that they're using Iran as a possible threat is a joke. Just another example of blowback spun into a threat to the US. The real story is that the US/Israeli created cuputer virus Stuxnet was deployed in Iran last fall and now our mighty leaders are scared that they'll do the same to us.

No mention of why they're worried or who it was that started the cyber battle (us...again). Much like 9/11 "those crazy foreigners are out to get us for no reason"

Even if they pulled something they wouldn't have the tech to do anything substantial, were not talking about china here.

Quick pass Cispa so we can be saved from those crazy Iranians who hate our computers for their freedoms.
 
Last edited:
amodei from nevada voted for it.....scumbag gop.....I met him and he reeks of BS
Yeah, he's truly a POS NEOCON. He's gotta go!

CISPA: Patriot Act for the web – Internet activist
http://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-patriot-web-swartz-081/

Published: 27 April, 2012, 02:27

afp-photo-gannon-david.n.jpg


AFP Photo / David Gannon

TRENDS: CISPA
TAGS: Politics, Law, Internet, Information Technology, USA, Security

With the House of Representatives' approval of the controversial CISPA bill, Internet users are worried about possible consequences. RT spoke to Internet activist Aaron Swartz, who said CISPA could be used to spy on people.


*RT: Can you explain the difference between this legislation and the previous controversial bills aimed at combating piracy?
Aaron Swartz: The previous bills were about giving the government the power to censor the Internet. And this is more like a Patriot Act for the Internet. It sort of lets the government run roughshod over privacy protections and share personal data about you, take it from Facebook and Internet providers and use it without the normal privacy protections that are in the law.


RT: So as far as individuals are concerned, is it worse than the previous ones?

AS: Yes, it’s worse because it does allow the government to shut down websites for ‘national security' reasons. It does have all the censorship problems the previous bill did. But it also goes much further and allows them to spy on people using the Internet, to get their personal data and e-mails. It’s an incredibly broad and dangerous bill.


RT: It’s not popular amongst Internet users, but it is popular with big companies like Facebook, IBM, and Microsoft – they’re backing CISPA. How can protesters compete with major corporations and companies like that?
AS: Well, it’s true. Big corporations are supporting the bill, especially big corporations that make money off of violating people's privacy. So it’s not a big surprise they’re in favor. But we’re seeing that the same way grassroots efforts were able to stop SOPA – despite millions of dollars of Hollywood lobbyists behind it – are now also being able to stop this bill. I mean everyone said, this is just a consensus in Washington, you couldn’t do anything. And now, even the White House is coming out against this bill with strong language, much stronger than they used against SOPA.


RT: The Obama administration is planning to veto the bill despite the fact that over two hundred in Congress are supporting it. Is this more about political point-scoring or preserving online privacy?

AS: I think the White House is obviously interested in repairing its reputation. But I think there are some people in the White House who really do care about privacy. The fact is, when they looked at this bill and investigated it, they saw how incredibly bad it was and that forced them to speak out.


RT: This bill, though, at the end of the day is meant to enforce cyber security and prevent threats. If these are real threats, then surely the US does need something to safeguard against them. What’s your alternative?

AS: Well the thing about this bill is it doesn’t really have any protections against cyber threats, all it does is make people share their information. But that’s not going to solve the problem. What’s going to solve the problem is actual security measures, protecting the service in the first place, not spying on people after the fact. So what I’d like to see is what a bunch of security experts have proposed – a bill that really does secure computer systems, makes them harder to attack, rather than one that involves more spying and watching people.


RT: Across Europe, we’ve seen thousands come out to protest the planned global Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA. But depending on Friday’s vote in Congress, do you expect the same kind of response in the US over CISPA?

AS: We’ve already seen quite an outcry. I don’t think it’s going to be on the level we’ve seen in other countries. Almost a million people have signed a petition on the Internet. Many representatives have spoken out against it. This is a tougher fight, no question, because it’s harder to go up against this notion of cyber terrorism that they’re using. But I think we’re making a lot of progress and I think we’ll see the bill eventually defeated.


CISPA was introduced in the House of Representatives last November by Mike Rogers (R-MI) and has since been amended on a number of occasions. Numerous critics, including World Wide Web founder Tim Bernars-Lee and Representative Ron Paul, continue to criticize its overly broad wording, which would permit private companies to submit personal user data to the government.

Congress had previously failed to approve SOPA and PIPA, which sought to bar access to websites containing illegally published copyrighted information. The bills were shelved in January, after a day of protests by major Internet companies, during which Wikipedia and Reddit among others remained inaccessible for 24 hours.

An international equivalent of SOPA and PIPA, ACTA was signed by eight countries plus the EU and all of its members. However, the agreement was met with a bevy of protests throughout Europe and has so far not been ratified by any country
 
Last edited:
Ugg my congressman and I think all Republicans in my state voted yes..Lots of work still here to do

Buchson was a no vote. But I'm sure he would have voted yes given the chance. At least we have a good primary challenger in district 8.
 
Well organize a class action against the politicians (charge them for malfeasance and corruption - treason against the citizens and general public) and to reverse this decision and for deceiving the people.

The action of such as internet services google, yahoo, bing, facebook and etch (with your internet provider) that they can own their subscribers and users private and public information as well as to monitor/record/profile activities including the abuse of cloud memory, the cookies and allowing to legally hack in your computer systems to be able to keep and see what's inside your PCs, tablets and internet phones; and then share those with the government private and intelligence organizations.... this will also authorize private parties to shut downs internet services and manipulate censorship....
 
Thought for the day:

“Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses. It is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
-H. L. Mencken
 
Seriously surprised to see Rehberg voted no.

I'm serious. This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm sure the only reason he voted against it was because he knew it would pass anyway.
 
They already are, and they have names like iPhone, iPad, XBox Kinect, webcams and so on.

Oh, apparently without an iPad (what is that, like an iTampon?) you're behind the times! Now they have Interweb Ready TV's with Cameras and Mic's built right in for your (in)convenience, Internet Ready Refrigerators, and Internet Ready Washing Machines! All preinstalled with FarceBook apps for your (in)convenience! The Internet Ready Toilet (that analyzes your urine to see if you have any drugs in your system, or are just flushing a dime bag) and conveniently scans your urine for any and all "anomalies" and uploads it to a central location that you can check with your iDevice, as well as letting all of your FarceBook buddies know you just flushed a whole Dime Bag while the cops were kicking in your front door is right around the corner. Get yours today for the low low price of $12,999.99 (financing available)!

Privacy prevents the Coersion of Corruption.
 
My rep Barbara Lee voted no. I'll send her a thank you.

Update: Sent "thank you" email.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top