Politicians Amend Controversial CISPA Security Bill

[Something Amyss]

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?

Well, that's a disingenuous compromise, since lack of legislative power still doesn't equate to not having any weight at that level. By that logic, neither does the Constitution.

 

[Baldr]

There a huge difference between obtaining a warrant for information that a corporation is unwilling to give and obtaining the information voluntarily. The bill does not require any corporation to give over any information. The whole thing works on a voluntary basis. Warrants are not required.

Look at Operation:Game Over. Basically the State of New York went to companies like Microsoft, Apple, Blizzard Entertainment, Electronic Arts, Warner Bros. and Disney gave them a list of Sex Offenders and asked them to take off any accounts. These companies didn't have to, it was a total voluntary thing.

 

[w00tage]

Stopping "the government" from perusing private information at will is not the need here. Stopping CORPORATIONS from perusing your private correspondence at will is the issue. NOBODY should be reading your private communications except for the intended recipient. Allowing corporations to do so is asking for back-channel data mining and establishment of privately-owned "consumer profiles" that inevitably will be sold between companies so that everyone knows everything about you.

And inevitably, this information will be used for purposes that are illegal, such as denying employment, economic predation, sexual predation, etc. Employment blackmail is also a huge one - what happens when someone you report to knows your financial status from your consumer profile? Think they won't use that information to make you a slave to their success?

 

[w00tage]

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.

Because it was proposed and accepted as an official "this could happen" thing in the first place. The presence of rights is supposed to preclude bills that make it legal to abrogate them. But the people who's official JOB it is to know this were the ones that accepted those bills into Congress. And this bill too.

 

[w00tage]

To address these fears, Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Md.), the bill's sponsors, set about amending the legislation and this week presented a version of CISPA which they say is much friendlier towards the rights of the internet-browsing individual. According to reports, the amended bill restricts the government's ability to collect data to situations which involve stopping "cybersecurity, investigating and prosecuting cyber crime, protecting individuals from death or serious bodily harm, protecting minors from child pornography, and ensuring national security."

Uhh... Escapists, I've been a huge anti-SOPA and PIPA person on these boards, and generally am very unhappy with how these bills are being made and passed. But I searched through the bill, read majority of it and understood most of it, and also keyword searched through it.

There really isn't anything to fear. There was no mention of finding people for death or serious bodily harm, protecting against child porngraphy, nothing like that. Seriously, try and use the Find button on the bill and no such terms as "death, serious, bodily, harm, child, minor, pornography, porn" etc come up. Ever.

I think people really need to calm down and quit with the media fear. We blame Fox News of attacking everything with fear, but we ourselves seem to do it too when we post up claiming everything is SOPA equivalents.

Read the bill yourselves: http://rules.house.gov/media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CPRT-112-HPRT-RU00-HR3523.pdf

It even says in Page 10 Section A (line 23 on that page for you folks) that if it the Government screws up in any way with this law, it'll pay all your fees, reimburse you, and give you $1,000 for the error and then void any charges against you because of it.

Lets all take a step back from the rage and maybe understand why it's passed so well now when previous bills didn't, and with support of companies that previously didn't support such bills... maybe because it's actually a good version?

Come on, now. (Prepares flameshield for those who won't read the bill and claim I'm some Fed in disguise)

TLDR: Bring me the sections that support these claims it's another SOPA, tell me the page, section, and line, and I'll agree then if you're correct.

Here you go. https://www.cdt.org/files/pdfs/cybersec_chart.pdf

Compares the bills. Page 3 is specifically my concern, that the people who gather this information are free to use it in any way they want, including selling it, with full protection for any abuses they commit "in good faith".

Given how broad the language is, just exactly how much power is being handed to corporate management? As I see it, under this bill, a single manager who doesn't like the cut of your jib can not only use your information to find an excuse to fire you, they can BLACKBALL you through information sharing with other companies. And they're completely immunized from legal action as long as they can show the slightest justification that they're acting "in good faith".

Trust me, you do NOT want to hand some people the kind of continent-sized ass-shield represented by the phrase "in good faith". Consider what Bobby Kotik or John Riccitiello would do with such information. /shudder