Politicians Amend Controversial CISPA Security Bill
- Thread starter Hevva
- Start date
The US Constitution establishes the Supreme Court as interpreter of the Constitution, and they have determined a right to privacy, so realistically it doesn't matter if we have an actual proper definition of right to privacy in the Constitution itself.Farther than stars said:
great.
now its getting from bad to worse. way to go.
now they have to copy the chinese. my friend lives there and he said its a nightmare with these strict controls. cant watch youtube, cant use facebook except the chinese facebook version. and everything gets monitored.
as soon you say something bad about the chinese government or try share a news to the world about china, it gets closed.
now its getting from bad to worse. way to go.
now they have to copy the chinese. my friend lives there and he said its a nightmare with these strict controls. cant watch youtube, cant use facebook except the chinese facebook version. and everything gets monitored.
as soon you say something bad about the chinese government or try share a news to the world about china, it gets closed.
Yep, and judging by recent events it seems that he hates us.Saviordd1 said:
OT : Like a Hydra. Cut a head... :\
It matters a little bit though, because if it was actually in the constitution, as opposed to being a fabrication of the Supreme Court, then that would effect how bills like this would be worded, since the constitution actually carries weight in law making, whereas the Supreme Court does not.Zachary Amaranth said:
I wanted to touch up on this point. I have a new perspective on how things work in our society thanks to a 4 hour BBC documentary called Century of the Self (Link [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9167657690296627941]) which analyzes how the works of Sigmund Freud has influenced our society in business and government throughout the 20th century. While the series doesn't relate this to todays internet world there is one interest connection it outlines in the final hour, that where/when business creates innovative new standards in marketing and sales techniques, the government and politicians are never far behind in adopting the same practices.AC10 said:
And whats the current trend today? Corporations tracking your online browsing habits and collecting person information where they can to create detailed individual profiles on each person through which targeted adds can be offered. History has shown that it's inevitable that the government and politicians will want in on this too, so how convenient this bill is to 'share' information back and forth.
I'm curious if another blackout would work twice or just seen as a stupid complaint and ignored entirely.
We need to do more. We need to do it soon.
We need to do more. We need to do it soon.
*sighs*
So their first plan to rule the country's internet was met with massive negativity, so what do our wonderful politicians do? They turn into teenagers, slink off to where someone with any sense isn't likely to catch them, then come up with more elaborate ways to break the same rules. All they need is fast food, booze and/or something to smoke to make the analogy complete.
I just hope that the next time elections come around, these people get replaced before they manage to do any more harm.
So their first plan to rule the country's internet was met with massive negativity, so what do our wonderful politicians do? They turn into teenagers, slink off to where someone with any sense isn't likely to catch them, then come up with more elaborate ways to break the same rules. All they need is fast food, booze and/or something to smoke to make the analogy complete.
I just hope that the next time elections come around, these people get replaced before they manage to do any more harm.
$10 says nine out of ten people read the thread title, don't bother doing any research at all and post a comment along the lines of: "lolz, Amerikan government are bad."
So what? He can only veto it once. They will vote again without changing anything and Obama won't be able to veto it. Veto doesn't mean jack shit when most of the people involved in voting are deep in corporate pockets.Irridium said:
captcha: speeding bullet
How appropriate. That is just what these politicians and corporate fuckers need in their skulls.
Dear American Goverment:
Stop trying to implememnt these bullshit Orwellian laws so your corporate buddies can make a little extra scratch. Or if you must, at least try and make sure it doesn't affect the rest of the world first.
Signed
Everyone on Earth
Stop trying to implememnt these bullshit Orwellian laws so your corporate buddies can make a little extra scratch. Or if you must, at least try and make sure it doesn't affect the rest of the world first.
Signed
Everyone on Earth
Isn't that where Jersey Shore took place though? Wouldn't that qualify it as "worst state ever"? Of course, I'm up in northwest PA in awesome Erie (Presque Isle FTW).RaikuFA said:
OT: Damnit Congress! Don't you have better things to do than police the internet? Like say, balance the damn budget?!
But how could anything resembling a warrant process possibly be effective with reference to digital content?aPod said:
I'm pretty ok with the bill honestly. I'll be for more narrowing down the specifics but quite frankly the people saying that the internet has brought too much anonymity and lack of personal responsibility have a point. If an individual is under suspicion on a reasonable level then I don't think there should be some long needed process to look through records like one would need for a physical investigation of their house. Digital content can't be treated the same as everything has been in the past. It won't work.
We should at least try to figure out how to make it work instead of how to kill it with fire else we totally are the 'bad guys' that the proponents of the bill want to make us look like.
That's the depressing thing about the government system in place. It started off as a brilliant idea to prevent one person from arbitrarily saying "This is how things are going to be. Deal with it." but now we have the opposite problem. Now we have two powerhouse groups being misled by the lure of money/fame/power or false information making all the decisions. The one person we show as being the leader is ultimately powerless to see that beneficial things go through and stop what the people of the nation have already shown to not want.Adam Jensen said:
Could someone please explain to me why EVERYONE ON THE FACE OF THE PLANET was upset about SOPA? I unerstand why THIS bill is considered threatening, since it could get passed under the noble banner of security, but SOPA never stood a chance. Even if it was pushed past the house, senate, and president, we all know it would be shot down by the supreme court. If someone could explain why I'm wrong I'd welcome it.
Uhhh...You're joking, right?Farther than stars said:
If not, I have no idea how to respond to that.
That's probably for the best. Look, I'm not saying that the Supreme Court doesn't have a way of setting powerful precedents which can eventually be incorporated into law making, but it doesn't have any legislative power itself. So why don't we just both leave it at that and get on with our lives?Zachary Amaranth said: