Obama Administration Threatens CISPA Veto, EFF Urges Action 106
An anonymous reader sent in word that the Obama administration is threatening to veto CISPA in its current form because "The Administration, however, remains concerned that the bill does not
require private entities to take reasonable steps to remove irrelevant personal information (PDF) when
sending cybersecurity data to the government or other private sector entities. Citizens have a
right to know that corporations will be held accountable — and not granted immunity — for failing
to safeguard personal information adequately. The Administration is committed to working with
all stakeholders to find a workable solution to this challenge."
Ars has a few more details, the EFF urges U.S. citizens to oppose the bill, and one of the sponsors tweeted that those opposed to the bill are basement dwelling fourteen-year-olds. Note that the Administration still wants there to be some kind of comprehensive data sharing law in the name of cybersecurity, so this may very well rear its head again in the coming months.
Why, America? Damn. (Score:2)
American politics is all over the board on so many things.
What kind of United States citizen wants to oppose the POTUS on protecting citizens' rights from corporate interests?
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:5, Insightful)
That isn't what he's doing. He's asking that they share information, they just don't share irrelevant information. The EFF is in opposition by asking that no information be shared at all.
It's basically one group wants to stick a rebar up your ass, Obama says "no, a silicone dildo with lube will do", EFF says "don't stick anything up our asses."
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:4, Funny)
It's basically one group wants to stick a rebar up your ass, Obama says "no, a silicone dildo with lube will do", EFF says "don't stick anything up our asses."
I am so stealing your example.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you are but we really don't want to know what you are doing tonight.
Re: (Score:2)
It's basically one group wants to stick a rebar up your ass, Obama says "no, a silicone dildo with lube will do", EFF says "don't stick anything up our asses."
Not really. One group wants to use the rebar. Obama says "we'll disguise it as a dildo".
We know ever since the Yahoo data release years ago that there is no such thing as "anonymized" data. Removing "personally identifiable information" doesn't work.
So even if Obama's proposed changes were adopted, it's still rebar.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yahoo data release? I don't know anything about that."
Back in around 2005-2006, give or take, Yahoo released a large batch of "anonymized" data to the public, as a "public service" and to demonstrate how "benign" that data was.
Boy, were they wrong. It really backfired. In a very short time, people started pulling "innocent" data out of the file and matching it up with names, and inside a day or two there were newspaper articles about how hundreds of identities were very easily pulled out of the data in a very short time, and much more could be had if someon
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:4, Interesting)
I can think of a few
- The citizens who own the corporations, or are sufficiently high enough in its organization to make wads of money off it
- The citizens who think POTUS is on the right track, but is approaching it wrong or have issues with the current implementation
- The crazy fuckers who oppose POTUS at every turn because he's black/Arab/has a white grandmother/The Man/Muslim/not Muslim/supports Israel/hates Israel/is from Kenya/is from Hawaii/is getting gray hairs/etc
- The slightly less crazy fuckers who oppose POTUS at every turn because they oppose his general political stance, but don't have the time/effort to pick and choose which specific issues to oppose
- and many more!
Re: (Score:1)
To clarify something here, it's easy for people on /. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.
When you say "the citizens own the corporations" you are basically saying the CEO class. They're the ones with the most stock.
I don't think that was the intention here, but the "people own the corporations" argument as a way to say that the corpo
Re: (Score:3)
week* weak
good f'n morning.
Re: (Score:3)
You're right about what I meant. The original poster was asking "what kind of citizen"? and I gave a few examples of them. However, as with the other examples, these are a small (but very vocal) minority of the overall population and in a true democracy would have almost no say in matters. However, there are people that think the big money CEOs shouldn't get any say, effectively denying them their rights as a citizen. I think they should get the same say as any other citizen ("one person, one vote" so to sp
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:5, Interesting)
Absolutely. "One man one vote" is a phrase that comes to my mind a lot these days.
I absolutely don't have a problem with CEOs voicing their opinions. I have a problem with their opinions holding perhaps one million times the weight mine does a private citizen. I don't even have a problem with a CEO opinion holding more weight than mine in certain cases (as experts, especially), but right now the private citizen means nothing. We keep hearing screams about "liberty," but as I read the constitution that's WAY out of line for what they believed liberty to be.
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:4)
To clarify something here, it's easy for people on /. so scream "BUT BUT BUT the PEOPLE own the corporations!!11!", but every time that gets mentioned it is always left out that over the half the stock of U.S. corporations are owned by the top 1% of the population.
Do you have a reference for that? I've always heard that the vast majority is held in retirement account trusts, which would be a hell of a lot more than "the 1%", it would include everyone with anything other than SS to retire on.
Eat up your heritige foundation propoganda... (Score:1)
Through my 401k, I own stock in several amoral multi-nationals. I have just as much control over them as I do the multi-national that employs me. Your argument is a purposeful distraction - basically propaganda for the criminal .001% that rule over everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:5, Insightful)
This bill sucks. The supposed "veto threat" is just a way to make it more to his liking. He'll sign it no matter what. We should have learned by now that, in spite of Obama's rhetoric to the contrary, he consistently supports every initiative that supports or helps big corporations that gets to his desk. The only exception I can think of is the Keystone Pipeline, and even with that he claimed it was someone else's decision.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why, America? Damn. (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean how can anybody even say we have a left and a right when the left POTUS is as pro big brother as the right or say we have a right when their POTUS blows through as much cash as any left winger.
We do have a left and a right. What you are missing is the 'Up' and 'Down' which represents Authoritarian vs Libertarian.
So you have a Left Authoritarian, and Right Authoritarian.
So you really do get the option between left and right. What you don't get is choice for liberty.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Your median is slapped over on the hard left.
FTFY.
Leftist governments are traditionally the governments that are large and up in everyone's business. That's what we got today.
This graph of US state senatorial positions [politicalcompass.org] shows the opposite of your above quoted statements. Right-leaning states' senators hold more authoritarian positions, while left-leaning states' senators hold more libertarian positions — though all of those positions are on the right and authoritarian sides of the median axes.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's exactly what the OP (Industrial Complex) was pointing out. We have a "left" and a "right" but they all committed to big government and authoritarianism.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that's exactly what the OP (Industrial Complex) was pointing out. We have a "left" and a "right" but they all committed to big government and authoritarianism.
Yes, but the AC I responded to claimed the US was left-of-median, which isn't true. Anyone can claim anything; my intent was to provide objective data illustrating that the left/right, authoritarian/libertarian spectrum in the US exists within the confines of right-wing authoritarianism (at least as far as elected officials are concerned).
I have a pretty good memory of Slashdot-regulars' general political stances, and it's heartening to see the broad bipartisan support here in opposing many authoritarian po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um. So which one of our political parties is *not* Corporatist?
I seem to have missed that part.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
To correct and expound on GP's post, traditional Left and Right can both be Anarchy or Authoritarian. All political parties in the U.S. swing towards being authoritarian by being far right in terms of Economics trumping Individualistic Freedoms.
The Libertarian movement in the U.S. is also far right and is a bastardization of Libertarian philosophies, so much so that they are not even considered Libertarian as their policies on free enterprise is counter to the core belief of Individual Freedom. "True" Liber
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
...they need to make encryption as simple and easy as pushing a button...
I quite agree, only I'd do away with the button. Always-on encryption is what users need today. This one step would eliminate the most egregious violations of the user's privacy by corporate, governmental, and criminal enterprises.
If it's too late to add always-on encryption to the existing internet infrastructure, then so be it. We'll have to build another, more secure, network. The sooner, the better.
Re: (Score:2)
"so this may very well rear its head again" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't count the ACLU as a friend of the private citizen. At least I don't these days.
They are constantly fighting for corporate rights because of supposed slippery-slope effects on everyone's rights. I can't see it that way. Due to the concentration of power corporations have due to their very legal nature I can't see how the rights of a corporation should legally be equal to that of an individual. By doing so you ensure a situation like the one we are in now where a corporation with enough lawyers can steamroll over any individual they want.
The ACLU is not the friend of the private citizen until they step back and say "yeah, corporations deserve rights, but they should be second-tier, below the rights of the individual citizen." Until they do that they are on the side of corporate anarchy, whether they realize it or not.
Re: (Score:1)
Defending free speech means defending free speech that you don't like.
I don't like KKK rallies but I understand our Constitution allows it. What I LOVE is that all the anti-racism protesters come out there and GREATLY outnumber the Klan members.
I wish the Westboro Baptist Church never existed, and they exploit free speech, but even their hate-filled rants are protected. Don't get me wrong, I love it when people fuck with them when they are protesting.
Because we let assholes like those people have free speec
Re: (Score:1)
In New York vs Ferber, the ACLU advocated that the possession and distribution of child pornography is protected by the first amendment.
Even after the Heller decision, the ACLU stuck to their collective right interpretation of the second amendment.
This is not a group that truly cares about freedom. They only want to use the constitution as a weapon.
LK
Re: (Score:1)
Don't take my word for it.
The ACLU has spoken openly about it.
http://www.aclu.org/blog/organization-news-and-highlights/heller-decision-and-second-amendment [aclu.org]
Re: (Score:2)
To play devil's advocate here, that example strongly suggests that they do care about freedom—the freedom to do what you want as long as no one is provably harmed. The victims in child porn become victims when the pictures are taken, not when the pictures are looked at (with the possible exception of situations wher
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-possession laws are universally dumb, no matter how evil or heinous you might personally think the thing being possessed is.
Anti-possession laws when applied to the so-called "vice" crimes are universally dumb. Using your examples, drugs and sex. In that case I agree with you.
Obviously, I don't want my neighbor to stockpile radioactive materials or nerve gas. Things that can be used to hurt other people I'm OK with being banned.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. There's definitely a line when mere possession poses an unacceptable risk of harm to others.
For example, you don't have to do anything with nerve gas for it to corrode the container it is in and kill people. You don't have to do anything with uranium for your house to collapse and cause a small supercriticality event that kills several of your neighbors, or for it to leach into the water supply and cause increased cancer rates throughout your area. And so on.
And as another person mentioned,
Re: (Score:1)
So why do you think that advocating for the legalization of child porn possession makes them anti-freedom?
That's not my argument.
The ACLU is for an expansive interpretation of some parts of the constitution while at the same time arguing for a restricted interpretation of others.
The ACLU is a bunch of hypocritical assholes, pro "freedom" or otherwise.
LK
Re: (Score:1)
Clearly, you are are free to come to whatever conclusions you wish but I prefer the consequences of widespread firearms ownership to the consequences of widespread firearms prohibition.
In this country, we have thousands of people who are murdered with firearms. In Europe and Asia, we had millions of people who were murdered by their own governments. As much as I prefer it to be zero people murdered, thousands are better than millions.
LK
Re:"so this may very well rear its head again" (Score:5, Insightful)
The people who live in Lansing Michigan are to blame for this. I was just looking at the Mike Rogers video on youtube and wishing he represented my district so I could vote against him.
Then I realized that I can still hate on everyone who lives in Lansing Michigan because Mike Rogers is ultimately *their fault*.
To put it another way, All of us need to hold the people of respective districts responsible for what their congressmen do.
Fuck You Lansing, CISPA is your fault so do something about it. Oh, and fuck Mike Rogers for thinking he's smarter than the average 14 year old.
Re: (Score:1)
The people who live in the USA are to blame for this. I was just looking at the George Bush video on youtube and wishing he represented my country so I could vote against him.
Then I realized that I can still hate on everyone who lives in the USA because George Bush is ultimately *their fault*.
To put it another way, All of us need to hold the people of respective countries responsible for what their presidents do.
Fuck You USA, war in the Middle East is your fault so do something about it. Oh, and fuck George Bush for thinking he's smarter than the average 14 year old.
I changed that for you so you can see what you sound like. Everytime someone mentions Bush, you Americans go on about how he's the fault of the other Americans (+ gerrymandering). But when you're not the one being blamed, it seems you think it's fine to blame everyone in the area.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please don't let CISPA's other co-sponsor, Democrat Dutch Ruppersberger, off the hook. He is just as responsible for CISPA as Mike Rogers is. Many of us were gerrymandered into Ruppersberger's 2nd District of Maryland last election (thanks Annapolis!) and are terribly ashamed that our new representative is advancing this abortion of a bill for a vote.
So, if I may -- Fuck You Baltimore County, Maryland -- as much as it pains me to say that about the place where I was born and raised, it is well deserved.
No he can't.... (Score:2)
No he cant work with legislative bodies. A good case for when compromise is not always the best course. Yet another way for government to get private information from private companies, never mind private companies sharing amongst themselves. Someday soon the time will come when what you buy is recorded, say you buy viagra. Not only will you start getting of
HIPAA? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, prescription medication information is covered under HIPAA in various ways.
Re:HIPAA? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a serious question, I don't know the answer. Does HIPAA protect pharmaceutical purchases?
I does now. But it won't after the gun control "universal background" check gets passed. There is an explicit exemption in there for all medical providers to share information with the background check system. So if you're prescribed anything from Haldol to Ritalin to Prozac (and any other flavor of SSRI), or even Wellbutrin, you'll be flagged as having a mental illness and unable to purchase a gun, and probably have any you own confiscated. They already do that in New York and California.
It's a good idea, but a bad implementation. It's a sledgehammer approach better implemented by relying on psychiatrists and psychologists evaluations. It will sweep up a lot of veterans that are no danger to anyone but the bad actors on the streets.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That was sure a long post with little more than "La la la I can't hear you" head-in-the-sand reaction. There is a lot more to the story that you could have found if you hadn't latched on to the first denial you had found and dismissed anything said by people that you have ideological differences with. The New American [thenewamerican.com] has some good coverage of the whole story. Whatever you heard about something "misreported", you have characterized it in an even less true way. The fact is, the guy had to appeal to the S [ynn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They already do what in NY and California? An SSRI prescription doesn't stop people (at least in CA) from getting a gun.
It seems that with the new law in New York, they are not only blocked from buying guns, but having their guns confiscated. [thenewamerican.com]
We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (Score:5, Funny)
We're 41-year-old basement dwellers, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We're not 14-year-old basement dwellers (Score:4, Insightful)
Anne Frank's diary would have likely been considerably shorter if she had access to Facebook or other social media. The Reich would have probably been monitoring it pretty closely. We've recently seen how the Internet can help revolution in some countries, but none of them have been under an iron grip as tight by a country with the resources of Nazi Germany, in which case the Internet would probably have been used against the people more than helping them.
Re: (Score:2)
Why just corporations (Score:1)
Who's going to hold the government accountable? They don't even have to disclose when they lose your personal information. Yeah corporations don't always have your best interests at heart, but neither does the government. It seems like a lot of people misplace their faith in them. You want to protect your personal information? Don't give it out. When I'm at the register and they ask me for my phone number? I tell 'em no. Sometimes I'm not even nice about it. If they press me I tell them I don't hav
Re:Why just corporations (Score:5, Interesting)
Withholding the information will work for now while this stuff is still in turmoil. However, if it becomes established across all businesses, then where will you go to buy food if no one will sell it to you without your phone number? What about a car? A home or apartment? I'm not so paranoid that I object to giving out a little personal information (like a ZIP code) but I don't like the idea of giving companies information not directly relevant to the business we're doing. If you're shipping me something, I can see why you would need my phone number. If I'm buying it in-store, then you don't need that. Unfortunately, most people will just give whatever information is asked for... I've had people give me their SS# or bank PIN because they misunderstood me when I was asking for something else.
The general masses don't understand that information is the ultimate smart bomb... it can be used to target a single individual with almost no collateral damage and can be launched from anywhere in the world at any time with no warning. The only defense is to protect the information and prevent it from spreading as much as possible.
Everyone knows (Score:3)
that 14 year old basement dwellers do not have rights and are not really people.
Re:Everyone knows (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
[Everyone knows] that 14 year old basement dwellers do not have rights and are not really people.
FINALLY Everyone is thinking of the Children!
They just don't think very highly of them, is all...
Choosy Mom's can't choose Beggars?
Re: (Score:1)
Yup, what an inane example - 14 year old basement dwellers. I, for one, remember what it was like being marginalized as a teenager by "the grown ups who know better" and don't take kindly to this kind of remark.
Re: ``14 year old basement dwellers'' (Score:2)
What a great idea! Piss off kids who will be voting in a few years. Let's see how well Rogers does with the 18 year old vote in the next election.
Land of the Free* (Score:2, Funny)
Perfect 10.0 on the 180 reverse (Score:3)
Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held accountable — and not granted immunity —
Like the telecomms weren't granted immunity?
I call (Score:2)
The only person that would call opponents "14 year old basement dwellers" are 14 year old basement dwellers. Whoever elected a 14 year old to congress is an idiot.
Congressman, you've been called. Score -5, Troll for you.
Unfortunately (Score:1)
Rogers has an excuse. (Score:2)
Republicans are totally out of touch with people. Rogers is a Republican. So he has an excuse for being totally out of touch with people.
How rude! (Score:1)
How rude!
Arise! Arise, and make your voices heard, basement-dwelling 40 year olds! >:-(
Not authoritarian enough? (Score:2)
The president threatened to veto the 2012 NDAA as well. Then, they amended the bill to grant government the power to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens on U.S. soil without charge trial or access to legal counsel and he signed.
Guess he's holding out for the "Internet kill switch" provision he's been wanting for years.