US House of Representatives Passes CISPA 248-168
- Thread starter nickycakes
- Start date
We all understand that the things in this bill are already being done, and this just legitimatizes it.
But THAT'S HOW MOST EVERY BAD LAW GETS PASSED!
Whereas before you could fight their wrongdoings in court, (ok, not very well) now you can't at all, because it's no longer a "wrongdoing." It's the law. Go to jail if you don't agree...
Worse though, they are incrementally going down a path we all don't want them to go down. Once they've got this law passed, they'll be comfortable trying to pass the next one that gives you a federal internet ID or something else we wouldn't accept right now.
Once that's passed, it's a natural step to require an RFID chip to allow you online in the first place... Then after that? For your safety the RFID should be embedded under your skin... Etc etc...
Each step by itself would be impossible to pass, but incrementally like they do it now; it's the frog in the slowly-boiling pot scenario.
These freedoms erode every day and at each stage you could say the exact same thing... That they're doing it already anyway, this just legitimatizes it.
r3VOLution 2012... It's not just a catchy slogan.
But THAT'S HOW MOST EVERY BAD LAW GETS PASSED!
Whereas before you could fight their wrongdoings in court, (ok, not very well) now you can't at all, because it's no longer a "wrongdoing." It's the law. Go to jail if you don't agree...
Worse though, they are incrementally going down a path we all don't want them to go down. Once they've got this law passed, they'll be comfortable trying to pass the next one that gives you a federal internet ID or something else we wouldn't accept right now.
Once that's passed, it's a natural step to require an RFID chip to allow you online in the first place... Then after that? For your safety the RFID should be embedded under your skin... Etc etc...
Each step by itself would be impossible to pass, but incrementally like they do it now; it's the frog in the slowly-boiling pot scenario.
These freedoms erode every day and at each stage you could say the exact same thing... That they're doing it already anyway, this just legitimatizes it.
r3VOLution 2012... It's not just a catchy slogan.
He better veto it, if he knows whats good for him!
A lot of the young people voted for him and persuaded their parents to vote for him.
He can not afford to piss those voters off. Do you think he went on that Jimmy Fallon show to act fool to reach the older generation?
Well to be fair, he did sign ACTA in October and the SOPA shit storm didn't even start being news until December.
They both suck, as does this current legislation, but it's not really the President's job to inform the media and public every time he's going to sign a bill or treaty, he was elected to do those things without having to call for a public vote, his election WAS the public's vote.
ACTA had been in the works since 2008 and news of it had leaked well prior to the President signing the treaty. The public and the media (mainstream and otherwise) dropped the ball on ACTA. An outrage over that treaty may have resulted in the US pulling out as Mexico did briefly back in 2010.
CISPA's gotten worse though. Not only does it now say in no uncertain terms that the 4th Amendment does not apply online, but CISPA now states that uncle sam can do ANYTHING it wants with your personal online data, such as sell it to third parties.
Basically, the "new and improved" CISPA is uncle sam's co-reg bizopp.
Basically, the "new and improved" CISPA is uncle sam's co-reg bizopp.
CISPA's gotten worse though. Not only does it now say in no uncertain terms that the 4th Amendment does not apply online, but CISPA now states that uncle sam can do ANYTHING it wants with your personal online data, such as sell it to third parties.
Basically, the "new and improved" CISPA is uncle sam's co-reg bizopp.
While I don't want CISPA anymore than anyone else on this board does, your argument is taking some giant leaps from what the actual bill says. It doesn't say or otherwise imply anywhere that the 4th Amendment does not apply online. What it does say is that service providers will be alerted to cybersecurity threats (more on that later). And then the service providers will be encouraged likewise to share their information with authorities if they have pertinent information.
It's no different than if the government told the local Lowe's to be on the lookout for people buying bomb making supplies. You go into Lowe's and buy 2000 lbs of fertilizer, that's going to be suspicious, so Lowe's alerts the authorities and shares that information with them. That information can then be used in the investigation and subsequent prosecution of the crime. There is nothing as far as the 4th Amendment in this bill that doesn't already exist and has been ruled as constitutional by SCOTUS.
As far as your personal online data and the Government being able to sell it, that isn't the problem as I see it. Who cares if the government is selling your online data, google, facebook, amazon and everywhere else online does virtually the same thing. The people you should be pissed at is your ISP. If you're not suspected of doing anything relating to a "cybersecurity crime" the government won't have your info anyway. If your ISP provided them with access to your information and you were not under investigation or suspected of engaging in "cybersecurity crimes" then both your ISP and the Federal Government have violated Federal Law as written in this bill.
Now, about the amended part that seems to have caused so much controversy. I'll paste it below, but basically Amendment 6 (the one in question) does two things. First it lists out the reasons why this information may be obtained and used. Previously it simply said "cybersecurity crimes". It now lists out cybersecurity crimes (again more on that in a minute) as well as child porn, intent to disrupt a network without authorization, and legitimate threats of bodily harm.
I would argue that by listing out the reason your online data my be obtained and used by the federal government they have actually limited the breadth of the law. When the law was written as simply a "cybersecurity crime" it certainly could have entailed everything from terrorist plots to jaywalking. However, by defining and listing what it can be used for they have given the government limiting powers. Will they abuse those powers and overstep the line? Absolutely, but then it will be up the to courts to decide if the information was obtained for a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing. That's how our system works.
The second thing the amendment did was to clarify what a "cybersecurity crime" is.
This is the original section of the bill that has since been amended:
This is how that section of the bill now reads:
Additionally, the following was added to page 16 before line 1. It defines what a "cybersecurity crime" is:
Again, I'm not for this proposed legislation and I'm about 85% sure that as it stands now it will get vetoed, but it's not the end of civilization, it's not the end of the Constitution. It updates the law to bring them more in line with the times. It's shitty and the old farts in Congress shouldn't be deciding things like this since half of them can't even use the internet and the other half is trolling Craigslist for skank tail, but we're the ones that gave them that power when we elected them.
/Chapter