US House of Representatives passes CISPA cybersecurity bill

US House of Representatives passes CISPA cybersecurity bill

rt.com

The US House of Representatives has passed the controversial Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protect Act (CISPA).

Lawmakers in the House voted 288-to-127 Thursday afternoon to accept the bill. Next it will move to the Senate and could then end up on the desk of US President Barack Obama for him to potentially sign the bill into law. Earlier this week, though, senior White House advisers said they would recommend the president veto the bill.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Well would you look what happened today. I knew it was only a matter of time and I knew that eventually it was going to pass through again. I do not believe in coincidences anymore and am now just utterly disgusted that they will not let this die. Sure it has to go through Senate before it gets to the President but idk I just think that this is opening a very bad doorway. I will add a deeper explanation in a bit, for now though I just wanted to post here and get everyones two cents on the matter

That is all

Trowa

rt.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I think the 1990s and 2000s will be remembered as the good old days. The writing isn't just on the wall, its flashing in neon with a musical accompaniment.

They will get what they want and what they want is control. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it and they no longer need bother to be subtle.

Uhh... is this a typo, or mis-spoken or something???

One of the bill’s creators, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), said during a round of debate on Wednesday that $400 billion worth of American trade secrets are being stolen by US companies every year.

And then it goes on to say:

“If your house is being robbed, you call 911 and the police department comes. That’s the same scenario we are looking at here,” he said.

Am I missing something here? American trade secrets being stolen by US companies would be more like you call 911 because your house is being robbed by the police that are supposed to be coming to help you.

I really dislike politics. Half the time it doesn't make logical sense to me.

Originally posted by justwokeup
They will get what they want and what they want is control. There isn't a damn thing you can do about it and they no longer need bother to be subtle.

That's because the Internet isn't a right. Just like having a cell phone isn't a right or owning a car isn't a right. As long as it's not a right, they can regulate it all they want to. Especially since all of this Internet is bounced around between government communications satellites that don't have to exist and are only a convenience.

Ask George Washington or Thomas Jefferson if the Internet is a right.

If you want privacy, don't put your stuff on the Internet.

There's always snail mail.

I guess they need to justify their salary to the people who pay them. I am not talking about the peanuts they get from the tax payer, I am talking about the campaign money they get each year. That is how the two party monopoly perpetuates itself.

It is astonishing how unpopular legislation always finds a way to pass, yet popular legislation is buried. We see this with more gun laws, more wars, giving insider trading immunity to legislator, lack of banking regulation enforcement, tightening the internet flow of information, more corporate bailouts, etc.

Anything that favors the elite gets rammed through. Anything that favors the ordinary citizens must won the hard way. Money talks and good ideas walk. USA has become the poster-boy of evil imho! Its "funny" though because most americans only look at the middle east as tyrannical, yet they have all the weapons in the world and better food.

Maybe we should become a second or third world country to alleviate some of the stress.

reply to post by TrowaBarton


While people in Boston are still shell shocked, and they are still digging little old people out of a nursing home in Waco, the government is moving efficiently. The ONLY time they move efficiently is when there is a diversion going on.

For those of us who don't follow internet laws, what does this bill do that is bad?

Bunch of goddamn traders..... I wouldn't sell out people for a kickback, don't know how these scumbag "leaders" can look at themselves in the mirror and sleep at night.

Originally posted by charles1952
For those of us who don't follow internet laws, what does this bill do that is bad?

Does this help?

CISPA has been criticized by advocates of Internet privacy and civil liberties, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Avaaz.org. Those groups argue CISPA contains too few limits on how and when the government may monitor a private individual’s Internet browsing information. Additionally, they fear that such new powers could be used to spy on the general public rather than to pursue malicious hackers.[8][9] CISPA had garnered favor from corporations and lobbying groups such as Microsoft, Facebook and the United States Chamber of Commerce, which look on it as a simple and effective means of sharing important cyber threat information with the government.[10] Microsoft and Facebook no longer support the legislation.

wikipedia

Currently, the things I am reading are that Obama plans on vetoing this abuse of power, but we all know that we should take that with a grain of salt.

The Obama administration is threatening to veto legislation that would give private companies broad legal immunity for sharing cybersecurity information with the government. The White House detailed the changes it is seeking to the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) in a Tuesday statement.

Obama threatens CISPA veto

All your base belong to me ! ! !

Obama chuckling over echelon II

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Dear Krazysh0t,

It does, thanks. I apologize for not looking it up myself, I'm ashamed.

I found it interesting that even with Obama's promise of a veto, the Democrats in the House essentially split 50-50 on it. I wonder why. Oh well, the bugs in it will get ironed out in discussions with the Senate. I'll wait until then.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by Zaanny

You can't lay this at Obama's feet, at least yet. If you'd have bothered to read the article I linked in the post right above yours, you'd notice that the Obama Administration is talking about vetoing this bill.

Of course, what they say they are going to do and actually end up doing could be two completely different things, but until then this isn't on Obama.

reply to post by CryHavoc

Just like having a cell phone isn't a right or owning a car isn't a right.

I'm sorry but that just isn't correct, both of those refer to owning property which is very much a right.......

Can someone give an example of how this will affect them?

Originally posted by VeritasAequitas
reply to post by CryHavoc

 

Just like having a cell phone isn't a right or owning a car isn't a right.

I'm sorry but that just isn't correct, both of those refer to owning property which is very much a right.......

Yeah, I phrased it wrong. You can own them, you just don't have the right to use them. The privilege to use them can be taken away. You can have your driver's license suspended. You can't use the car if you can't afford to buy gas. And a cell phone company can cut off your cell phone use if you don't pay. And a judge can even order you to not call or text someone.

Sorry, I meant the use of both isn't a right.

You have the right to own a computer, you just don't have the right to use it. You have to pay to both power it and to use it to access the Internet. Or if you figure out a way to legally do both of those for free.

reply to post by CryHavoc


That flies in the face of ownership....... Then again most people are naive enough to believe that they own their house and vehicle

We don't really own #, we are slaves with the priveledge of renting everything from big brother......

Originally posted by steph the conspirator
Can someone give an example of how this will affect them?

privileged communications with an attorney.
privileged communications with your healthcare provider.
privileged communications of any kind that will no longer be privileged and you (although a party to the transmission) have -0- say in the matter.
good enough ?

reply to post by CryHavoc

Sorry, I meant the use of both isn't a right.

please, re-word it again.
you might get it correct eventually.

either way you've presented it thus far it is anything but the truth.

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by steph the conspirator
Can someone give an example of how this will affect them?

privileged communications with an attorney.
privileged communications with your healthcare provider.
privileged communications of any kind that will no longer be privileged and you (although a party to the transmission) have -0- say in the matter.
good enough ?

Scary.



I will be shocked if Obama vetoes this.

He might just earn a spot of respect, if he does.