"SOPA II" Passed?

[Zetona]

The House of Representatives, at least, passed CISPA, billed by some as a successor to SOPA. The Obama administration claims the President will veto it if it comes to his desk. The worry is that the bill is much worse than SOPA and cuts into the privacy of individuals. [url = http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa-is-ridiculously-hideous-and-it-just-passed-the-house-2012-4#ixzz1tGzRpiTu] This incredibly alarmist article [/url] details a worst-case scenario for the passing of CISPA.

What fascinates me is why there's been so little outcry over CISPA, when it seemed like the entire Internet got up in arms over SOPA. I've heard speculation that this is because SOPA threatened corporations more than individuals, and so those corporations had a stake in stopping its passage. Without huge websites like Wikipedia using blackouts to inform essentially the entire Internet about CISPA, word hasn't spread as quickly. I also have a theory that our reaction over SOPA exhausted some supply of activist sentiment in us, or perhaps we figured that since we stopped SOPA we wouldn't have to work as hard to stop CISPA.

What do you all think? Please tell me if I've got the facts wrong somehow here. I know SOPA was more about intellectual property, and CISPA is meant to address the lack of of provisions against cybercrime in the National Security Act of 1947, but from what I know about national security, the costs to our liberties would seem to outweigh the benefits.

EDIT: I apparently don't know how to create a link. Here's the URL to the incredibly alarmist article: http://www.businessinsider.com/cispa-is-ridiculously-hideous-and-it-just-passed-the-house-2012-4#ixzz1tGzRpiTu

 

[FalloutJack]

*Pulls out shotgun*

Here we go again. This shit won't be pretty.

 

[evilneko]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

Also, multiple threads already on this topic.

Worst case scenario? Life goes on. A very different outcome from the worst case of SOPA.

 

[Zetona]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

Also, multiple threads already on this topic.

Worst case scenario? Life goes on. A very different outcome from the worst case of SOPA.

Not that I agree with the insanely hyperbolic article I have in the OP, but the writer of that article clearly doesn't agree with you. How big of a threat do you think CISPA would be, if it's even a threat?

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

Spoiler: No, noo...

Well, I'll form an opinion of this after reading.

Edit:

"Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all."

Do not want. Don't you be giving lawmakers over here ideas... :/

 

[Esotera]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

It's not SOPA, but that doesn't mean that the bill doesn't pose a massive risk to internet freedom due to its vague wording.

Off the top of my head using the wikipedia article, my simply knowing that a site has an SQL vulnerability would allow me to be monitored under this act, even though I'm not a US citizen. Alternatively, you could say that 'degrading' a network could be constituted by using bittorrent to share files, as this uses bandwidth. Therefore anyone using p2p networks (although these are perfectly legitimate in themselves, and it is specific users engaging in copyright infringement) could plausibly be monitored.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Honestly, most people were burned out after the SOPA debate, so what better time to push through another controversial bill while everyone takes a nap?

 

[evilneko]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

Also, multiple threads already on this topic.

Worst case scenario? Life goes on. A very different outcome from the worst case of SOPA.

Not that I agree with the insanely hyperbolic article I have in the OP, but the writer of that article clearly doesn't agree with you. How big of a threat do you think CISPA would be, if it's even a threat?

Not much of one at all, really. I've read the bill, and not found anything to get seriously worked up over. It doesn't really change all that much but rather codifies how information is to be shared, in the event that it is shared at all. The EFF will have to come up with better arguments than they already have to convince me to worry about this bill. SOPA it ain't.

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

It's not SOPA, but that doesn't mean that the bill doesn't pose a massive risk to internet freedom due to its vague wording.

Off the top of my head using the wikipedia article, my simply knowing that a site has an SQL vulnerability would allow me to be monitored under this act, even though I'm not a US citizen. Alternatively, you could say that 'degrading' a network could be constituted by using bittorrent to share files, as this uses bandwidth. Therefore anyone using p2p networks (although these are perfectly legitimate in themselves, and it is specific users engaging in copyright infringement) could plausibly be monitored.

This is not new. Any network your traffic passes through may if they so choose take a peek. There's no law preventing that.

 

[Zetona]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

It's not SOPA, but that doesn't mean that the bill doesn't pose a massive risk to internet freedom due to its vague wording.

Off the top of my head using the wikipedia article, my simply knowing that a site has an SQL vulnerability would allow me to be monitored under this act, even though I'm not a US citizen. Alternatively, you could say that 'degrading' a network could be constituted by using bittorrent to share files, as this uses bandwidth. Therefore anyone using p2p networks (although these are perfectly legitimate in themselves, and it is specific users engaging in copyright infringement) could plausibly be monitored.

Vague wording generally seems to be the problem with bills like this. The US intelligence community has enough integrity to not exploit these holes for the most part, but the fact that they're there is still troubling.

 

[Shivarage]

If the bill really is another SOPA then the people in control of the media outlets will do what they did against SOPA again

But they haven't so need not worry

 

[LetalisK]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

Even though I could have done more research, I'm going to side with you on this one. Which is being very generous since I'm still angry you changed your original avatar.

 

[Zer_]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

Also, multiple threads already on this topic.

Worst case scenario? Life goes on. A very different outcome from the worst case of SOPA.

It's worse than SOPA in many ways. CISPA allows companies to hand out your personal info without the need for due process. They can basically say "This guy is a potential "Cyber-Terrorist" (which means jack shit) and BAM they gather every bit of information you've left behind on the Internet. Porn history (Yeah whatever), private e-mails, Bills, transactions, EVERYTHING.

The reason the media isn't nearly as active on CISPA is because the bill specifically protects corporations who give your information out to the government. This bill is absolutely stupid, and it's a clear breach of the 4th Amendment on the American Constitution.

SOPA's risks stemmed from the fact that it would turn Copyright Law into a fucking minefield. DMCA is more than enough to deal with piracy. Anything more than a reactionary response to crime is fucking dumb. The only valid way to keep crime on the low is to reduce poverty, keep employment rates high, and a robust education system.

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

It's not SOPA, but that doesn't mean that the bill doesn't pose a massive risk to internet freedom due to its vague wording.

Off the top of my head using the wikipedia article, my simply knowing that a site has an SQL vulnerability would allow me to be monitored under this act, even though I'm not a US citizen. Alternatively, you could say that 'degrading' a network could be constituted by using bittorrent to share files, as this uses bandwidth. Therefore anyone using p2p networks (although these are perfectly legitimate in themselves, and it is specific users engaging in copyright infringement) could plausibly be monitored.

This is not new. Any network your traffic passes through may if they so choose take a peek. There's no law preventing that.

Network traffic monitoring cannot be done on a large scale, not without costing huge amounts of money. Furthermore, should a Federal agency be caught doing so without a proper Warrant, then they can get in deep shit (as they should). As much as I hate the idea of network traffic being monitored, I do agree with it when a Warrant is issued for a valid reason.

CISPA is a massive step in the wrong direction. The terminology used in CISPA is flaky as shit. They've branded people as Terrorists before, they've had these people tortured and finally released because they weren't in fact Terrorists. Let's not forget that according to government, anyone who chooses to protest against government (where the Internet is a valuable tool for sharing information) can just as easily be branded a Terrorist. If you choose to state your opposing opinion of those in the Government, you're going against those who run your country, you're a rebel and a "terrorist" in their eyes. The whole idea of "Cyber-Terrorist" is fucking ridiculous.

The most ridiculous part of this whole ordeal is the fact that current laws against things such as murder, rape and anything else also applies to the Internet. When you're a "Cyber-Murderers" don't exist, "Cyber-Rapists" don't exist. They're Murderers, and they're Rapists plain and simple. If you steal someone's identity, then you're a thief. It doesn't fucking matter how you did it. why should they be called "Cyber-Thieves"? It's absolutely ludicrous. So on top of this bill posing a very real threat to free speech on the Internet, it's also a complete waste of our time. It's written with absolutely no regards to how the Internet actually functions.

 

[evilneko]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

Even though I could have done more research, I'm going to side with you on this one. Which is being very generous since I'm still angry you changed your original avatar.

Pfft, I change my avatar all the time.

They can basically say "This guy is a potential "Cyber-Terrorist" (which means jack shit) and BAM they gather every bit of information you've left behind on the Internet. Porn history (Yeah whatever), private e-mails, Bills, transactions, EVERYTHING.

This is some serious hyperbole.

The reason the media isn't nearly as active on CISPA is because the bill specifically protects corporations who give your information out to the government. This bill is absolutely stupid, and it's a clear breach of the 4th Amendment on the American Constitution.

This is even more serious hyperbole.

Anything more than a reactionary response to crime is fucking dumb.

This is quite a bad idea if you want to apply it universally.

It's not SOPA,

Indeed.

but that doesn't mean that the bill doesn't pose a massive risk to internet freedom due to its vague wording.

I (obviously) disagree. I don't really see the language being as broad as the EFF is making it out to be. Maybe I'm biased because networking is my field, but I see this as, "well shit, we do this anyway." CISPA doesn't let the government tap anything, it spells out how private companies can share information they gather between with the government and vice-versa, something which they could already do before CISPA. It doesn't allow them to break the law in order to obtain information either.

Off the top of my head using the wikipedia article, my simply knowing that a site has an SQL vulnerability would allow me to be monitored under this act, even though I'm not a US citizen.

I disagree with this evaluation. To use the definitions in the bill, you would be in possession of "cyber threat information." Nothing in CISPA makes possession of cyber threat information an offense, or a reason for monitoring, or anything of the sort. You're simply an individual with information. In fact, if you chose to disclose this information to the affected site, CISPA would actually protect you from being sued. This is a positive step forward, actually.

Alternatively, you could say that 'degrading' a network could be constituted by using bittorrent to share files, as this uses bandwidth.

Ask a few people stuck on overloaded cable nodes what they think of torrent users.

Therefore anyone using p2p networks (although these are perfectly legitimate in themselves, and it is specific users engaging in copyright infringement) could plausibly be monitored.

Plausibly, but would the network owner bother, beyond determining who the biggest bandwidth hogs are and warning them to cut it out or shell out more money? You said yourself monitoring is impractical. And again, nothing stops them peeking at your unencrypted traffic right now anyway. Know what keeps them from handing over data to the likes of the RIAA? A strong desire, borne of enlightened self-interest, not to turn themselves into copyright cops. Nothing about CISPA would change that particular desire.

And then the rest of your post goes off on a massive, IMO unjustified, tangent, which I won't bother to address.

 

[Aerodyamic]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

It's not SOPA, but that doesn't mean that the bill doesn't pose a massive risk to internet freedom due to its vague wording.

Off the top of my head using the wikipedia article, my simply knowing that a site has an SQL vulnerability would allow me to be monitored under this act, even though I'm not a US citizen. Alternatively, you could say that 'degrading' a network could be constituted by using bittorrent to share files, as this uses bandwidth. Therefore anyone using p2p networks (although these are perfectly legitimate in themselves, and it is specific users engaging in copyright infringement) could plausibly be monitored.

Vague wording generally seems to be the problem with bills like this. The US intelligence community has enough integrity to not exploit these holes for the most part, but the fact that they're there is still troubling.

I think you have a greater degree of respect for what human beings will do to other human beings if granted an unassailable opportunity to completely fuck each other.

But I commend you on your optimism, nonetheless.

 

[Zetona]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

It's not SOPA, but that doesn't mean that the bill doesn't pose a massive risk to internet freedom due to its vague wording.

Off the top of my head using the wikipedia article, my simply knowing that a site has an SQL vulnerability would allow me to be monitored under this act, even though I'm not a US citizen. Alternatively, you could say that 'degrading' a network could be constituted by using bittorrent to share files, as this uses bandwidth. Therefore anyone using p2p networks (although these are perfectly legitimate in themselves, and it is specific users engaging in copyright infringement) could plausibly be monitored.

Vague wording generally seems to be the problem with bills like this. The US intelligence community has enough integrity to not exploit these holes for the most part, but the fact that they're there is still troubling.

I think you have a greater degree of respect for what human beings will do to other human beings if granted an unassailable opportunity to completely fuck each other.

But I commend you on your optimism, nonetheless.

As I understand it, it's not really in the CIA or the FBI's interest to invade everyone's privacy for the sake of doing so. They'll do what they feel is necessary for national security, which is still probably more than most of us are comfortable with. But the Orwellian scenario of them monitoring everyone's bank transactions, porn preferences, etc. from the article I linked won't happen, unless I've totally misunderstood the scope of the bill and it opens the information up to more than just consummate professionals.

 

[Aerodyamic]

CISPA is not SOPA, has nothing to do with SOPA, doesn't do anything even remotely similar to SOPA, and does not pose a massive threat like SOPA did.

It's not SOPA, but that doesn't mean that the bill doesn't pose a massive risk to internet freedom due to its vague wording.

Off the top of my head using the wikipedia article, my simply knowing that a site has an SQL vulnerability would allow me to be monitored under this act, even though I'm not a US citizen. Alternatively, you could say that 'degrading' a network could be constituted by using bittorrent to share files, as this uses bandwidth. Therefore anyone using p2p networks (although these are perfectly legitimate in themselves, and it is specific users engaging in copyright infringement) could plausibly be monitored.

Vague wording generally seems to be the problem with bills like this. The US intelligence community has enough integrity to not exploit these holes for the most part, but the fact that they're there is still troubling.

I think you have a greater degree of respect for what human beings will do to other human beings if granted an unassailable opportunity to completely fuck each other.

But I commend you on your optimism, nonetheless.

As I understand it, it's not really in the CIA or the FBI's interest to invade everyone's privacy for the sake of doing so. They'll do what they feel is necessary for national security, which is still probably more than most of us are comfortable with. But the Orwellian scenario of them monitoring everyone's bank transactions, porn preferences, etc. from the article I linked won't happen, unless I've totally misunderstood the scope of the bill and it opens the information up to more than just consummate professionals.

I meant more generally.

If you give a group the option of fucking another group with little or no chance of repercussions, group A will usually fuck group B.

 

[Something Amyss]

What fascinates me is why there's been so little outcry over CISPA, when it seemed like the entire Internet got up in arms over SOPA.

This is the twitter era. KONY 2012 went from big deal to big scandal to wanking in public.

Nobody pays attention. We fought, we won, OOOOH KITTEHS ON YOUTUBE!

 

[Zetona]

This is the twitter era. KONY 2012 went from big deal to big scandal to wanking in public.

Nobody pays attention. We fought, we won, OOOOH KITTEHS ON YOUTUBE!

KONY's also an interesting case. I think that even without the wanking in public, April 20th (the date on which it was originally scheduled to go global) would have still passed without a whimper. Perhaps it's a sense of "I've done my part, now let me move on". It would make for an incredibly interesting study.

As I understand it, it's not really in the CIA or the FBI's interest to invade everyone's privacy for the sake of doing so. They'll do what they feel is necessary for national security, which is still probably more than most of us are comfortable with. But the Orwellian scenario of them monitoring everyone's bank transactions, porn preferences, etc. from the article I linked won't happen, unless I've totally misunderstood the scope of the bill and it opens the information up to more than just consummate professionals.

I meant more generally.

If you give a group the option of fucking another group with little or no chance of repercussions, group A will usually fuck group B.

That's true. If CISPA gives the option to fuck up other people to a group that isn't specifically taught not to fuck people up if possible, shit will get real.

 

[Something Amyss]

This is the twitter era. KONY 2012 went from big deal to big scandal to wanking in public.

Nobody pays attention. We fought, we won, OOOOH KITTEHS ON YOUTUBE!

KONY's also an interesting case. I think that even without the wanking in public, April 20th (the date on which it was originally scheduled to go global) would have still passed without a whimper. Perhaps it's a sense of "I've done my part, now let me move on". It would make for an incredibly interesting study.

You forgot the "Watch Ponies" step.

>.>

No, but I think you're right.