PDA

View Full Version : Last Minute Provisions on CISPA



m00
04-27-2012, 09:43 AM
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.


http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml

:cold:

m00
04-27-2012, 09:46 AM
And from the LAT: Just 28 Republicans voted against the bill, joined by 140 Democrats.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-cispa-passes-in-the-house-after-surprise-vote-20120426,0,1723123.story


Guess it's time to throw the bums out again.

Rockntractor
04-27-2012, 10:24 AM
I'm all for changing the party after this election, the I'm a little teapot protests seriously lacked something last time because obviously we got more of the same.

m00
04-27-2012, 11:03 AM
I'm all for changing the party after this election, the I'm a little teapot protests seriously lacked something last time because obviously we got more of the same.

Well, I don't think there's a better time to change the congressional arm of the party. The only time it's possible to change the party is during the elections. All house seats are up for grabs in 2012. So I would just make it clear that passing bad, last-minute legislation will result in incumbent losses in the congressional primaries. Lets put some non-terrible Republicans on the congressional ballot, there are plenty to choose from.

On CISPA it still has to go through the Senate, and Obama still has to sign it. But this is one of those bills that I call the "3rd term Bush" category -- stuff that Bush wouldn't support, but rather the liberal's caricature of Bush would support. So it will be interesting to see what Obama does when it crosses his desk. DU will certainly be interesting.

Rockntractor
04-27-2012, 11:10 AM
Well, I don't think there's a better time to change the congressional arm of the party. The only time it's possible to change the party is during the elections. All house seats are up for grabs in 2012. So I would just make it clear that passing bad, last-minute legislation will result in incumbent losses in the congressional primaries. Lets put some non-terrible Republicans on the congressional ballot, there are plenty to choose from.

On CISPA it still has to go through the Senate, and Obama still has to sign it. But this is one of those bills that I call the "3rd term Bush" category -- stuff that Bush wouldn't support, but rather the liberal's caricature of Bush would support. So it will be interesting to see what Obama does when it crosses his desk. DU will certainly be interesting.

Okay let's just disrupt the whole thing right before the election and give Obama the white house again and let the Dems have both houses, after four more years he will have complete control of the court system as well as the supreme court.
I bow before your superior intellect.

m00
04-27-2012, 12:05 PM
Okay let's just disrupt the whole thing right before the election and give Obama the white house again and let the Dems have both houses, after four more years he will have complete control of the court system as well as the supreme court.

I bow before your superior intellect.

I hear what you are saying Rock, but I really don't understand the point of "someone's" party controlling government when they clearly and continually act in an interest detrimental to pretty much everyone. You're saying "well the other party acts more detrimentally" and I don't dispute that. But if we're not even allowed to try and swap out the incumbent in the primary for fear of the other side winning, then what's the point of any of this?

It's like the Republican party has a gun to our heads and is saying "You MUST vote for our big government statists... or else THEIR big government statists will win! And there's are worse!"

"And don't even ask to run a small-government conservative... because if they get nominated in the primaries clearly you want the democrats to win!"


So what I'm saying, is if the Republican party isn't allowed to run small-government conservatives for fear of Democrats winning, what is the point of the party?

Rockntractor
04-27-2012, 12:09 PM
I hear what you are saying Rock, but I really don't understand the point of "someone's" party controlling government when they clearly and continually act in an interest detrimental to pretty much everyone. You're saying "well the other party acts more detrimentally" and I don't dispute that. But if we're not even allowed to try and swap out the incumbent in the primary for fear of the other side winning, then what's the point of any of this?

My main consideration right now are the ages of our supreme court justices, the next 4 years will determine whether liberals gain complete control of the supreme court, if they do recent events should tell us that would be the end of a free republic.
This is not even taking into consideration all the appointments that will be made in the lesser courts, these are all lifetime appointments.