Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government Privacy United States Politics Your Rights Online

Rep. Mike Rogers Dismisses CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeter On the Internet" 222

Posted by samzenpus
from the foot-in-mouth dept.
gale the simple writes "Mike Rodgers made a minor splash Tuesday when he decided to liken CISPA opponents to 14-year-old basement dwellers. The EFF, naturally, picked up on this generalization and asked everyone to let the representative know that it is not just the 14-year-olds that care about privacy."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rep. Mike Rogers Dismisses CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeter On the Internet"

Comments Filter:
  • Hey... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:27PM (#43478597)

    I resemble that remark!

    • Re:Hey... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:45PM (#43478693)

      From the mouth of babes, as they say. Something tells me that fourteen year old tweeters such as yourself know infinitely more about how the web works than this Rogers character. Not as if he cares though, right?

      And editors... Fuck it, if you haven't improved after so many mistakes there's just no point in bothering to point them out any more.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Not sure. I haven't poured through the draft of CISPA to know really how good or bad it is, but I have to have heaps of respect for a congressman with enough knowledge of pop culture, memes, and the internet in general to string that one liner together.

        Seriously, watch the video, this is the first government representative who seems to have any clue what the internet is, internet subculture, and communication in general. He makes up the comment off the cuff and then follows with a clarification in "grandm

  • Title says it all. EFF page says nothing was found.
    • by bondsbw (888959) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @11:18PM (#43479483)

      I think the summary needs to clarify: this is Michigan representative Mike Rogers, not Alabama representative Mike Rogers.

  • EFF link broken (Score:4, Informative)

    by MaxToTheMax (1389399) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:29PM (#43478615)
    It has an extra lowercase "l" at the end, remove that and it works.
  • by eksith (2776419) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:30PM (#43478617) Homepage
    Should be leading here [eff.org]
  • 50 something (Score:5, Insightful)

    by EzInKy (115248) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:30PM (#43478627)

    This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.

    • Re:50 something (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:51PM (#43478725)

      This 50 something year old say FU Mike, and facebook and google too. You are welcome to your big brother future, but leave the rest of us out of it.

      Usually, when a politician backs crap like this (and especially when they say really ignorant things like this guy did), a file all about them shows up at their office filled with data found via legal access.

      I just have to assume that there is some heavy lobbying pressure on this guy from corporate America - corp America is increasingly dependent on Big Data and they are against anything - anything at all - that will limit their precious data. Through in the whole "national security - stopping the next marathon bomber or the next school shooting" and you have a recipe for more intrusions on our privacy.

      It doesn't help that there are millions of US citizens voluntarily giving up their privacy via Facebook.

      • Re:50 something (Score:4, Interesting)

        by EzInKy (115248) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @09:00PM (#43478781)

        But even the motto of the state he was elected to serve spells it out...."Audemus jura nostra defendere" - We Dare Defend Our Rights, and here he is wanting to surrender everyones to the corporate overlords.

        • by c0lo (1497653)

          But even the motto of the state he was elected to serve spells it out...."Audemus jura nostra defendere" - We Dare Defend Our Rights, and here he is wanting to surrender everyones to the corporate overlords.

          There's no contradiction... it's only the matter of correctly defining who are "we" and the motto still holds true.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Ditto. 50 years old and more conservative than this statist f**k-tard will ever be.
      The GOP should be the natural party of individual (and states') rights, but they keep nominating fascistic shits like this.
      I wonder why they're called the stupid party?

      • Having sat through several election cycles, Mike Rogers is your typical, average Republican... Like your mom or grandma. He's not pro-big-business... He's too easily distracted by "think of the children" arguments. He knows we need to protect kids an this law would do that... But like your grandma, he's not clever enough to read between the lines and catch that the bill is REALLY a massive handover to big business to collect stuff about us.

  • by davydagger (2566757) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:35PM (#43478657)
    Who do you trust more, really?

    Teens in their basement, or slimebag politicians in washington?

    At least we know teenagers in their basements aren't taking money from special corporate intrests trying to fuck us all over.
  • by Cali Thalen (627449) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:35PM (#43478661) Homepage

    My first thought was...after sitting down and discussing it with his 14 year old nephew, it must all have gone over Rodgers' head, and he didn't learn anything. Hey, next time let the kid write the legislation, leave it to the experts.

  • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:49PM (#43478701) Homepage Journal

    The us congress need less Reps like Rogers. They need people that will actually go outside the corporate bubble.

    • THAT IS THE PROBLEM, isn't it?

      This is a guy normal Slashdotters would like. (I'm from Michigan) he's somebody your patents would vote for. He's an average guy who had a small business and had plenty of run-ins with the big businesses in that time. Normally he would be looking out for us little people... Except when you get in those "bleeding hearts" movements where the whole thing is a trap. Can you give a bill like this to your mom or dad (but not Randle Munroe's mom) and expect that she would understand

      • Normal people don't normally think how things are written to be used against them ... When it's supposed to protect kids. Normal people don't really consider life of the "not normal" people at all. If you don't have mom + dad and "e" kids and 2 pets with 2 cars and a house, you quickly start dropping off the radar of how "normal" people should act.

  • But what does it matter how old I am? Is this law bad? Yes.
    • by SeaFox (739806)

      But what does it matter how old I am?

      If you're 14 years old you're too young to vote, so Congressman Rogers doesn't care what you think.
      And he assumes none of the people who are able to vote feel the same way you do.

  • by Colonel Korn (1258968) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:54PM (#43478745)

    Honestly, 14 year olds tend not to be remotely aware of the evils of bills like CISPA. In my experience it's the best and brightest segment of society that's united against this nonsense. On the other hand, 14 year olds are quite familiar with answering criticism with a false ad hominem attack.

  • by tokencode (1952944) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @08:55PM (#43478753)
    If you want congressmen to take your opinion seriously, you need to speak in the only language they understand... votes. Someone needs to start a crowd-funded super PAC that specifically targets politically vulnerable candidates who opposed privacy. Start running negative ads in their home districts and you may see a change, but last I checked no one in Washington gives a crap about what is posted on /.
    • by TaoPhoenix (980487) <TaoPhoenix@yahoo.com> on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @09:44PM (#43479007) Journal

      They don't, but chops to you for heading towards a "managed" situation in politics.

      It's a weird line they are following - on one hand if they bomb the masses with enough ads, they get their votes. In another way, they have got to be deathly afraid if the masses actually start coordinating votes. I could go on for 3,000 words but I'll stay short in this post. The basic point is, for the first time ever, Social Media can Coordinate votes to counter the advantage politicians have had of close access in the Capitol for a hundred years. Right now there's no platform for it. But so help us when there is, this grand Pres cycle will be a WHOLE NEW game.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      ... language they understand ... votes.

      As capture theory reveals: The decision-making process is controlled by small dedicated interests. Any large group has split loyalties that prevents them matching the influence of the fanatic/paid faction. US congress itself is an example of this. It also occurs after the common enemy has been defeated in a civil war or political revolution.

      ... start a crowd-funded super PAC ...

      You've just described Green Peace, and possibly Wiki-leaks. How many donate to those organisations?

    • by Legion303 (97901)

      "If you want congressmen to take your opinion seriously, you need to speak in the only language they understand... votes."

      That's an odd way to spell "dollars." Is it a foreign word?

  • by Areyoukiddingme (1289470) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @09:14PM (#43478865)

    14 year olds care about privacy? Really? REALLY? Hello, there's a website we'd like to introduce you to Mr. Congresscritter. It's called Facebook. You should find out what happens there sometime.

    Is it just me or has the rate of public officials mouthing off like children increased? Don't these people have any dignity anymore? (That last is a rhetorical question...)

    • It's not just you, but I wouldn't slander the Kids!
      (Have we forgotten that meme that fast, that all the cyber bills are For The Kids?!)

      They are mouthing off, but not kids - some kind of weird way they think the "mood is right" and they can get away with it.

      Any 3 of these 10 stories would have been career enders Back In The Day.

      But there's some kind of magic going on - they can say *absolutely anything* and still keep their elected posts.

    • by amiga3D (567632)

      Dignity in Congress? Been watching the news lately?

  • Rep. Mike Rogers == Insensitive Clod

  • by Anonymous Coward

    You have just funded your opposition, and if I didn't consider it a near-certainty that you were in a contrived electoral district that would re-elect you for anything short of being caught with a dead 14 year old in your bed, that would spell your doom.

    As it stands, there's always some hope.

  • Typical... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kittenman (971447) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @09:25PM (#43478919)
    Republicans doing sweeping generalizations...

    They always do that sort of thing

    pause....
  • by Millennium (2451) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @09:28PM (#43478931) Homepage

    Unfortunately, the man has something of a point. There are a lot of 14-year-old basement dwellers in the anti-CISPA crowd, and a lot of people who just want to get their entertainment without paying for it. In short, a significant number of the people who oppose CISPA are doing it for the wrong reasons. CISPA is wrong, but so are they.

    Those of us who care about the real issues might do well to disassociate ourselves from the creepers and the pirates. Even they need protection, but let's not kid ourselves, that's more a matter of logistics than principle: protection is meaningless if it doesn't protect everyone, and so they get a pass in order to make it work at all. Their voices in this debate only harm the side they fight for. But this presents a problem: how the heck would a community like this disassociate itself from its less savory members?

    • by Intrinsic (74189)

      Maybe its because our ideas of property and ownership are changing and people just don't want to accept it. All of this content that is controlled by the wrong people, its time for that to end. the content belongs to the people not to corporations that have convinced people to to give away ownership of there creations. We need to quit being so selfish with our creations, they are meant to be shared and if you are going to make money by it, that will be decided by the people that experience your creations no

  • by Grimbleton (1034446) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @09:29PM (#43478943)

    It's a shame he only cares about one part of the bill of rights.

    • When the internet is outlawed, only outlaws will have the internet.

      Yes, a free internet can be dangerous in the wrong hands -- but of all people, a gun rights advocate should understand why that's not grounds for banning/controlling/censoring it.
  • by Great Big Bird (1751616) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @09:30PM (#43478949)
    So are we going to have this song and dance every year?
    1. Politicians introduce legislation against common people's interests.
    2. Initial concerns over privacy/abuse of power are voiced.
    3. Companies of all sorts voice support, and how much it is needed.
    4. Apparently clueless politicians make statements minimizing critics as somehow insignificant.
    5. Huge outrage swells up from 'the people'
    6. Politicians and Companies back-pedal
    7. Last clueless politician stays the course.
    8. Bill dies.
    9. ???
    10. Rince and Repeat
  • Because I believe I am substantially older than 14 years old and I oppose the CISPA.

  • by GrumpySteen (1250194) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @09:39PM (#43478985)

    I'm fairly sure the President of the USA is not a 14 year old tweeter.

  • A congress-critter who doesn't understand legislation's effect on technology. Will wonders never cease!

    • by amiga3D (567632)

      I get that. What I don't get is why the staff they pay for with our tax money doesn't seem to have a clue either.

  • He claims that Silicon Valley CEO's support this bill. Well, let's see. Google never took a stance, Facebook and Microsoft rescinded their support, while AT&T and Verizon (big surprise), IBM, Intel and McAfee support it (didn't Intel buy McAfee?)

    So no, Silicon Valley CEO's do NOT all support it - and even if they did, it isn't a ringing endorsement against privacy concerns. After all, what does the CEO know about the technical ramifications? In many cases (esp. for long established companies), they ar

  • by rusty0101 (565565) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @10:13PM (#43479117) Homepage Journal

    ...Mike isn't going to be able to go after the 14 year old tweeter for a TOS violation under CFAA, as the TOS at Twitter do not seem to have a minimum age requirement that he would be violating.

    As someone on the far side of 40 from the described 14 year old, I have to say that I appreciate that 14 year olds who are opposed to CISPA are aware that this will have an affect on their privacy, and are being vocal about it. It suggests that civic responsibility is recognized as part of one's personal sense of duty to our youth, which suggests that at least someone is paying attention to their school classes, which may be counter to what Mike expects of any of the public, much less the 14 year olds out there. It also suggests that a 14 year old is more aware of the issues involved than this sitting representative. While I think that's a positive reflection on our youth, I think it's a very poor reflection on at least one of our representatives in Congress.

    • by amiga3D (567632)

      I wonder if this dickhead knows that these 14 year olds will be old enough to vote in 4 more years? He'll probably needs someone to do the math for him.

    • Isn't it heartbreaking when 14 year olds have more concern for the ideals the country was built on than politicians that allegedly represent us?

  • We already know Republicans are totally out of touch. Nothing new here. Move along.

  • https://twitter.com/jimktrains/status/324711791034761216 [twitter.com]

    @RepMikeRogers I wonder if calling me a 14yro in a basement & implying I'm uneducated&unprosperous bc I disagree with you counts as slander

  • by servognome (738846) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @10:35PM (#43479283)
    I'm 45 and it is still not okay for my parents to come into the basement without knocking first!
  • by FuzzNugget (2840687) on Wednesday April 17, 2013 @10:52PM (#43479381)

    Every year or more often, it seems, we have yet another jaw-droppingly fascist and Orwellian proposition to fight.

    Some wrinkly old dipshit psychopath completely disconnected from reality, at the behest of his (or her, but mostly his) corporate cronies, makes some astoundingly malevolent proposition to sacrifice the rights of everyone but himself and selected entitled individuals. We then have to step up and expend an enormous amount of time and energy battling to retain the rights we should be able to take for granted. Time and energy that could otherwise be used constructively.

    If this becomes a big enough threat, the response needs to be alike to that of SOPA. Even after the people won, they rubbed it in: practically half the web went dark and DC went batshit. It's been little more than a year since then, have they already forgotten or has the dark lens of pure evil blinded them that much?

    • by pla (258480)
      If this becomes a big enough threat, the response needs to be alike to that of SOPA.

      No. The response needs to look like the bloody (meant literally, not as an expletive) "Jasmine Revolution". We already responded to SOPA like we responded to SOPA, and where did it get us? They reintroduce the same goddamned steaming pile of corporate Christmas presents every year.

      We need to reject this in a way that makes our leaders afraid to try it a 22nd time. We need to send the message that if you favor busine
  • by Required Snark (1702878) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @12:10AM (#43479677)
    Rodgers is far from the only Republican who thinks that citizens should shut up and do as they are told.

    http://politicalwire.com/archives/2013/04/17/bonus_quote_of_the_day.html [politicalwire.com]

    "I am the senator. You are the citizen. You need to be quiet."

    -- North Carolina State Senator Tommy Tucker (R), quoted by the Raleigh News and Observer, to Goldsboro News-Argus publisher Hal Tanner who was opposing legislation to change public notice requirements for local government.

  • Sounds like something a 14-year-old would say.
    • by mwvdlee (775178)

      From the point of view of the crybabies who wrote CISPa, a 14-year-old is practically an adult.

  • Lets assume for the sake of argument, that he is right. And the only people who care about privacy are 14 year olds... Is he saying that they don't deserve their privacy? Won't he at least think of the children?
  • Wish I had a basement to stick my 14 year old in.

  • It took me all of three minutes to isolate his Flash Cookie.
    My my my. Just LOOK at what he's been doing!

  • by Opportunist (166417) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @08:36AM (#43481409)

    Either he doesn't understand the implications of the bill, even after his 14 year old nephew (who quite obviously does) tried, and tried hard enough for him to remember it, to explain it to him.

    Or he does understand it very well, but someone is spending enough to make him push it through.

    So which is it, Representative? You incompetent or a ho?

    You called me a 14 year old, don't wonder when I respond like one.

  • by T.E.D. (34228) on Thursday April 18, 2013 @09:33AM (#43481879)

    The "14-year-old" crack is of course code for "the complainers don't count becase they don't donate money to anybody". IMHO, that's even more aggrevating.

    So are you little angry about being insulted by this corporate puppet? Well, there is a way you can get back at him. Show your displeasure in a way he understand.

    Donate money to his opponent. [actblue.com]

    There's a Democrat trying to challenge Mike Rogers, by the name of Lance Enderle. I don't know too much [dailykos.com] about the guy, but he has apparently pledged to take no PAC money. So he may be a drooling pinhead, but if you donate he'll at least be your drooling pinhead, and not the RIAA's.

It is surely a great calamity for a human being to have no obsessions. - Robert Bly

Working...