"SOPA II" Passed?
- Thread starter Zetona
- Start date
Recommended Videos
It's unconstitutional, period. There's no arguing this.evilneko said:Pfft, I change my avatar all the time.LetalisK said:
This is some serious hyperbole.Zer_ said:
This is even more serious hyperbole.
This is quite a bad idea if you want to apply it universally.
Indeed.
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.
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.
Ask a few people stuck on overloaded cable nodes what they think of torrent users.
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.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=389&invol=347
Combine this with the United States vs Jones case (which is mostly considered a supplement to the Katz case), and you can begin to see the concerns. Even with the recent amendments, the bill is still far too vague. The whole point of the protest against CISPA is based off of the severe distrust for government and their agencies. They have proven time and time again that they will circumvent the Constitution in order to keep track of citizens, as has been displayed in the recent United States VS Jones case on warrantless GPS tracking.
To even try to pass a bill that allows the government to gather personal information without a warrant is absolute absurdity. Decades of cases prove that the FBI and other government agencies overstep their bounds on a regular basis. If you trust your government, then fine go ahead. Fortunately most people are smart enough to realize that this is a bill that WILL be abused, therefore it cannot pass.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/united-states-v-jones/
The Justice department did not confirm whether or not the GPS tracking used on Jones was reasonable, however all five Justices did conclude that Warrantless GPS tracking was unconstitutional.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1259.pdf
From the looks of that 'alarmist' article you bothered to post. It only really says that IF you are suspected a badguy then this crap happens, everything afterward that uses the phrase "Dead as we know it" is a continual list of IFs that have not even happened yet and are in no way guarenteed to happen yet.
I will admit that people ought to have probable cause, get a warrent, and such before getting under my skin, but since I have never been accused of anything and have no criminal record, I find it hard to care about something that probably will not happen to me.
I will admit that people ought to have probable cause, get a warrent, and such before getting under my skin, but since I have never been accused of anything and have no criminal record, I find it hard to care about something that probably will not happen to me.
We need ideas here we got the job done right with SOPA but I dont know if thats going to work this time.
Were gonna need all the help we can get if we can put a figurative boot to this shits figurative face.
We've got to stir up a shit storm,online petitions,cyber attacks,Email campaigns I know most of this stuff is a pain but I hav'nt got any other ideas besides a strongly worded letter Suggestions would be welcome.
Were gonna need all the help we can get if we can put a figurative boot to this shits figurative face.
We've got to stir up a shit storm,online petitions,cyber attacks,Email campaigns I know most of this stuff is a pain but I hav'nt got any other ideas besides a strongly worded letter Suggestions would be welcome.
Are you monitoring the kind of shit that is running trough your computer while reading this post?BishopofAges said:
I know I can't, I can only prevent it. All it takes is a security breach and your computer can be streaming fuck knows what from shady servers in the Eastern Europe.
The argument "Uh, I'm a law abiding citizen" doesn't work because any reason can be used to classify you as a potential criminal and lose your right to privacy.
As a matter of fact, I am. It's called a firewall, routed through more firewalls. Is it perfect? HELL NO! However, the main way of getting attacked or used for illicit purposes is by visiting strange creepy websites or pissing off some hacker or some such thing, I have done neither.ElPatron said:
Is this strategy perfect? No, but it's better than what most people are doing so I can sit happily while my chances are in the lower percentile.
I find your overparanoia disturbing.
Don't expect this to get Google and Facebook to protest against it. This bill is actually beneficial to companies like them. It will probably get watered out but currently the bill says that companies are immune to privacy lawsuits.
Obama say's he'll veto it. But he says a lot of things...I wouldn't count on him.
Obama say's he'll veto it. But he says a lot of things...I wouldn't count on him.
Why does this almost feel like a plan to get Obama some more support? "Look, he vetoed it! He's on our side!" I'm not claiming anything, just sayin'...
OT: I get the feeling these are going to keep coming until something passes. More power for the government after all.
P.S. to any who think "well I obey the law!" allow me to point out the Patriot Act was used far beyond its initial intention. All they have to do is come up with any bull they want, there is no "but I've been good!"
OT: I get the feeling these are going to keep coming until something passes. More power for the government after all.
P.S. to any who think "well I obey the law!" allow me to point out the Patriot Act was used far beyond its initial intention. All they have to do is come up with any bull they want, there is no "but I've been good!"
And I find your overconfidence in the government disturbing.BishopofAges said:
Months ago we all agreed that the whole SOPA ordeal was caused by a bunch of old farts that don't understand the internet, now CISPA can be trusted to only affect criminals? It's the same exact thing.
I ask again, can you monitor what's going on? No.
Seriously, there are 0 reasons to trust the government. I think that if we could trust it, we would have higher standards of living and we would not have to worry about unemployment, the actual percentage of REAL meat there is in the meat I eat or even about crime!
I trust the government about as far as I can throw a politician. I would also like you to not change the subject, this is about the article at hand.ElPatron said:
It states 'suspected bad guy' that means they either A) Cook up some dumb reason to accuse a regular joe like me then go in my compy, or B) I AM actually a bad guy. What you're talking about is that they can peek at my computer BEFORE I am set up as a 'bad guy' and I will be damned if you're not suggesting they just randomly want to take people down or can see the future.
I was once downloading files which are public domain (and perfectly legal to own - M1911A1 REDUX schematics, a few survivalism guides and the glorious SAAMI list of cartdridges) from Mediafire and my PeerBlock log showed pings from the US Navy and other North American agencies.BishopofAges said:
If I were an American citizen I'd be on a "list" right now.
I am not saying they want to randomly take people down, but I'd gladly chose not have private info read by someone investigating me. I care about my privacy, not about conspiracies.
Public domain, my friend, it would be the same as if they checked your library card info and saw you checked out that survival manual, if you had done it in person.ElPatron said:
I can understand privacy for things like buying your girlfriend/wife something intimate or visiting a medical site to discuss your embarrassing rash, but those things happen to everyone, good and bad.
What I aim to put out here is that, IF (big if) this article is taken as fact of the law, that I generally do not care about its abilities. However, if this law is worded differently (I have not yet looked it up) and can have devistating effects on privacy or freedoms that Regular Guy/Girl A that have no reason of provocation, then Yes, we do need to stop it or resist it.
What I meant was that I wasn't stealing anything nor reading top secret info. This is the internet, I shouldn't have to present my library card. I wouldn't if I asked a friend to copy a few pages of a document.BishopofAges said:
You forget the kind of info I possessed at the time. Detailed schematics of a firearm, useful info on common calibers and survivalist tips.
Basically that would be enough to consider me a terrorist, even if the law states that I can even own the schematics for a nuke as long as I don't do anything with it.
if it passes the backlash is going to be horrible maybe even enough to revert the law.
and the last time I read about it it was passed in the white house but still had to be voted on in the senate.
and the last time I read about it it was passed in the white house but still had to be voted on in the senate.
I think that activism requires a lot of energy, and SOPA, the Occupy movement, a Computer Voting scam in Canada, it's just worn out all support. I'm sure if something passes that really sucks, people will take to the streets to get it repealed, but I think the activism in most of the internet is just tired.
You don't understand the law. The Government can't go through your library records without a warrant, and for good reason. They can't go through your transaction records without a warrant. The same thing applies to the Internet. The Government is trying to give themselves the ability to grab all that information without a warrant. Let me repeat that, WITHOUT A WARRANT.BishopofAges said:
It's complete nonsense. They're trying to get their grubby hands on people's privacy through heavy handed bills that have no place in law.
Actually it has nothing to do with Piracy (Though their term: "Cyber Crime" means they could go after pirates). Furthermore, Canada does NOT allow the RCMP or other Police forces to peer into someone's private life without approval of our courts. I have no idea where you got that idea but please cite me the section that allows them to do this, chances are you won't find one. Time and time again the RCMP and other Police forces around Canada had to acquire a Warrant before being able to peer into personal records such as transactions, medical records and even Library records. The need for a Warrant is put into place for a damn good reason. This applies to both Canada and the United States.Bhaalspawn said:
Cybersecurity: What the fuck does that even mean? It's far too broad a term.
Investigating and Prosecuting Cyber Crime: Cyber Crime? Again, it's far too broad a term. They can label the discussion of opposing government opinions as Cyber Crime for all we know. Specifics.
Protecting individuals from Death or Serious Bodily Harm: That's already covered under current murder and assault laws. If you sent a threatening e-mail to someone, then that person can take that e-mail to the courts, the courts will grant the Police a warrant, and they'll begin investigating that claim. There's no need for any new laws concerning this shit.
Protecting Minors From Child Pornography: We already have laws covering this. People who molest their children are already prosecuted under current laws, why should we even need CISPA to do this?
Ensuring National Security: This is far too vague. They've already labelled innocent people as "Threats to National Security" It's also worth noting that the PATRIOT Act which in itself is too heavy handed. The term "Terrorist" is not a legal term, yet we see it being used time and time again. Those who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks weren't just Terrorists, they murdered thousands of people. Murder IS a proper legal term, Terrorism is NOT.
On top of the absolutely terrible wording of the bill, enabling a Government agency such as the NSA or FBI to acquire one's personal information without a warrant is completely ludicrous.
Fun Fact: Did you know that British Columbia and Nova Scotia both amended their own laws to prevent the US from infringing on their Citizen's privacy from the United States' PATRIOT Act?
Source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2004/10/29/patriotact_bc041029.html
EDIT: The OP is pretty foolish to call this bill SOPA II. In many ways the implications of the bill are far more damaging than SOPA.
Also let me state that their use of Cyber as a prefix for so called "crimes" is fucking aggravating as shit. If I steal someone's identity, then I'm an Identity Thief, I'm not a "Cyber Identity Thief." If I copy someone's music composition and incorporate it into my own song without proper permissions, then I'm a Pirate, not a Cyber-Pirate. The current laws that protect the citizens from thieves, murderers and rapists also apply to abusing people through the web. The laws that can't cover specific crimes related to the internet have already been dealt with in law.
For a Government to pass a bill of this scope in some ridiculous attempt to cover ALL THE CYBERCRIMES EVARR! is fucking dumb.
Yes, I noticed the other articles you say you got. People do it all the time here, they are usually gun/camping/hunting enthusists, and I have seen none of them go to jail for their interests until they blow someones head off.ElPatron said:
A Library card, as a reference, I use it because most of us pay to USE the internet. We, ourselves, do not OWN it, we pay to use it for its massive amounts of por--I mean information vital to our lives. There probably is a database to each customer, login info and such kept at comcast, centurylink or AOL (lol remember AOL?), but it doesn't really mean much since we've been using the net this whole time (almost 10 years for myself alone) and have received no consequences for knowing graphic histories of arms, terrorism, or anything racist, violent, or otherwise.