Skip to main content

View Diary: ACTION: STOP CISPA (12 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This bill does not create these imaginary threats (0+ / 0-)

    It might be better if one actually read the bill itself rather than echo a hyped up all-caps Internet chain letter.

    But it might make for a typical right wing political talking point. Obama wants his Indonesian spies to take your guns away, perhaps. Again, really stupid. Par for the course.

    Please realize that the right wing introduces bills like this and then plants the hair-on-fire viral messages everywhere in a blatent attempt to distract the left and drive us crazy. You've taken the bait. These thing never go anywhere. Ignoring the BS drives the right wingers crazy.

    This isn't to say that this bill is a good idea because it isn't. It's typical right wing paranoia overreaction to some imagined scenario, imo. It goes way overboard in making the details of the US cyber-security methods and techniques available without requiring the experts to apply for or be granted appropriate security clearances.

    Again, the right wing has opened up the secrets to the enemy rather than write a bill that accomplishes their intent.

    This bill won't really have anything left in it once the Congressional Intelligence Committee takes the more stupid provisions out of it. Even if this passes the House, it's certain to fail in the Senate and would get vetoed anyway.

    The bill specifically retains all existing privacy protections and civil liberties. It even requires that the shared information is audited and reported to the public as a unclassified document. The bill specifically excludes sharing information about private citizens and even goes on a bit about removing private identity information before the information is allowed to be shared among existing government organizations.

    The intent seems to be about trying to streamline the sharing of EXISTING cyber-threat information and potential problems in case of a national cyber-security threat (like from Iran, Armageddon, and Pron) and to respond faster to a threat. This connects existing disparate government security and military organizations and allows the inclusion of private contracted security expertise in the loop in the event that a threat is happening. Think of this as allowing the government to call in the experts such as the commercial and academic computer security experts very quickly.

    To do this, they try to bypass security safeguards by saying that those who would be expected to be granted a security clearance can get access without actually having the appropriate security clearance.

    Stupid and unnecessary.

    So before you write hate mail to your Congresscritter, read the bill. If you just parrot the fear-mongering hair-on-fire bullet points, you won't get anywhere. And the right wingers will have made you waste a lot of time.

    "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 03:37:08 AM PDT

    •  1. GOG, it IS a right-wing bill. Rogers=R (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      linkage

      ...& most of the cosponsors are RW Republicans as well (but enough token Dems to call it "bipartisan").

      2. I wrote this myself, & I've cited my most important sources. If you're determined to ignore those, you can investigate Joan McCarter's sources, & it's all over Techdirt.

      3. Point out anywhere where I've even mentioned President Obama. (I'll save you time — it's not there.) Unless or until he officially endorses or signs it, why are you dragging him into this?

      4. Funny, I could have sworn that I mentioned in the diary that the bill is already out of committee & headed to a floor vote — Oh wait, I did. (& besides, anything that get temporarily yanked to make it stink less on the floor can be added back in conference committee.)

      5. What makes you think that the Senate isn't getting ready to merge this bill with John McCain's SECURE IT (S 2151), its Senate equivalent?

      6. Why should I take your word over EFF, CDT, the ACLU, & others concerning the legal ramifications of this bill — or for that matter, over my own eyes?

      7. This is an action diary on an activism site in which I've urged people to call Congress. If you call that "hate", then do you even believe in the site's mission?

      Tell Congress: DON'T BREAK THE INTERNET! Fight CISPA! Stop Cyber Spying!

      by Brown Thrasher on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 10:59:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I said it was a bad bill (0+ / 0-)

        I did not mention Obama.

        Just because it'w written by Republicans, it doesn't mean it has a hidden agenda behind it.

        The committee report isn't available on Thomas. Thus, the changes to the bill that it needs are not available, either. I.e., parts of the bill are probably classified. This is what makes it bad, not the actual content.

        I didn't say that he bill wouldn't be merged with McCain's crap. I said it wouldn't pass in the Senate.

        I didn't say not to take ACTION. I did, in fact, take action. I wrote my Senator. I said that writing a letter that goes overboard won't get you anywhere.

        So what makes you think I didn't research the bill? What makes you think it's all about eroding personal privacy and freedom?

        None of these over the top things are true. Nothing in these bills even comes close to these claims. If your research involves accepting clains from others simply because you know who they are, then you've made a big mistake. The bill itself is the only source you can trust. Beyond that, it's hype.

        "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

        by GrumpyOldGeek on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 04:19:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Round 2, then... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          linkage
          I did not mention Obama.
          Yes you did:
          But it might make for a typical right wing political talking point. Obama wants his Indonesian spies to take your guns away, perhaps. Again, really stupid. Par for the course.
          ...& I note again that you were the first to mention him in this comment thread, whereas the body of the diary didn't mention him at all.

          Next item...

          Just because it'w written by Republicans, it doesn't mean it has a hidden agenda behind it.
          I was just as critical of SOPA & PIPA when a small army of establishment Democrats were foursquare behind them. A bad bill is a bad bill.
          I didn't say that he bill wouldn't be merged with McCain's crap. I said it wouldn't pass in the Senate.
          But it's not in the Senate; it's in the House. If you're saying that you think the Senate will vote down its version (the McCain bill), great — but that's not the issue. (If, on the other hand, you're playing a hypothetical game where the Rogers bill was the McCain bill, then why are you wasting time?)
          I didn't say not to take ACTION. I did, in fact, take action. I wrote my Senator.
          Bully for you. That's all I'm asking.

          Tell Congress: DON'T BREAK THE INTERNET! Fight CISPA! Stop Cyber Spying!

          by Brown Thrasher on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 07:13:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Do you realize that we're both against this bill? (0+ / 0-)

            If that's all you're asking, then why piss all over my opinion?

            I'm just not buying the hair-on-fire game.

            "All people are born alike - except Republicans and Democrats" - Groucho Marx

            by GrumpyOldGeek on Wed Apr 18, 2012 at 08:05:40 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site