Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Censorship Communications Government United States Your Rights Online Politics

New CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Even Worse Than SOPA 234

An anonymous reader writes "As congressmen in Washington consider how to handle the ongoing issue of cyberattacks, some legislators have lent their support to a new act that, if passed, would let the government pry into the personal correspondence of anyone of their choosing. This is SOPA being passed in smaller chunks... 'H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short) has vague definitions that could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New CISPA Cybersecurity Bill Even Worse Than SOPA

Comments Filter:
  • by alienzed ( 732782 ) on Saturday April 07, 2012 @06:03PM (#39609107) Homepage
    I keep seeing people protesting with huge signs with the words 'Freedom' and 'Liberty' on them. I mean, who buys that BS anymore anyway? There's no such thing as freedom, and 'liberty' in what sense? You can't be completely free and still expect society to be safe, I mean, what about the freedom to kill? The freedom to feed oneself at the expense of another creature or someone else? Hopefully someday we'll have a third party, the Realist party. Until society can handle to not believe in noble lies, we're doomed to mediocrity. On a side note, I thought of a great analogy to show what's wrong with capitalism today. The original expression: If you give a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, you'll feed him for life. The capitalist version: If you sell a man a fish, you'll feed him for a day. If you teach a man to fish, or give a man a fish, you'll go out of business.
  • by dkleinsc ( 563838 ) on Saturday April 07, 2012 @06:54PM (#39609333) Homepage

    There isn't a president in history that's "created" a Job.

    You're mostly right, except for this part. Any time a president pushes through a bill that boosts either direct or indirect federal hiring, he creates a job. For instance, when Franklin Roosevelt created the CCC, he most definitely created jobs. When Ronald Reagan put significant cash into missile defense, even though nothing worked it still created jobs.

  • by SuperTechnoNerd ( 964528 ) on Saturday April 07, 2012 @07:05PM (#39609395)
    I love your fish analogy.. How about:

    If you teach a man to fish, or give a man a fish, you both get slapped with a massive law suit.
  • by VortexCortex ( 1117377 ) <.moc.edargorter- ... . .xetroCxetroV.> on Sunday April 08, 2012 @02:02AM (#39610863)

    Careful with your psychopath detector. I'd wager my life that they would become as unmaintained, inaccurate and yet unquestionable as today's breathalysers (which detect gasoline fumes as intoxication, and most register clean air samples as containing alcohol due to build up in their unmaintained and uncallibrated lasing chambers).

    Go ahead, angle an educated question of doubt as to the breathalyser accuracy in court. I dare you. You'll wind up in contempt.

    Let a nebulous "mind scan" dictate our fates and I assure you that the psychopaths will be "gaining positions of control, governance or influence" in ways your small mind daren't conceive.

  • by 0111 1110 ( 518466 ) on Sunday April 08, 2012 @06:46AM (#39611523)

    I'm a Libertarian. So I don't have a horse in the Democrat vs. Republican race. But there really is a large group of Republicans which for decades has been known as the "religious right". At least since the sixties. In fact it is probably the dominant segment of the Republican party. Religion plays a strong but implicit role in many of their ideas. Democrats are still generally Christians, but they are less likely to take it seriously, and aren't generally interested in passing laws motivated by tenets of their religious beliefs. So I think the OP was mostly correct in his analysis. Religious motivation is probably one of the few real differences between the Republican and Democratic parties these days.

    It used to be that Democrats were known for supporting personal freedoms of the kind that the ACLU are known to fight for, but unfortunately the party seems to have moved past all that now, fully embracing the true goodness of the government in every aspect of our lives.

    It used to be that Republicans were concerned with financial freedoms: taxes and business regulation and relatively free market economics, but didn't particularly care about personal freedoms, like the freedom not to be pulled from your house, beaten half to death, and thrown in jail on false charges by the police, who, in their view are inherently pure and can do no wrong.

    In general the modern Republican party cares even less about personal freedoms, like the right to continue breathing, or not to be falsely imprisoned, or even murdered without a trial, than it used to, and they have even backed off a bit on the idea of financial freedom as well. No one wins elections these days by promising liberty of any sort. It just isn't popular anymore.

    Honestly, I'm not even sure what Democrats want anymore. It seems like they have gotten a lot of what they wanted in the economic realm. In terms of personal freedom, well, that's a real mystery to me. I'm not sure they have any horse in that race at all anymore. Almost as if the Democratic party is solely an economic platform now. More taxes and more social services maybe? But not too much because that would make them socialists and that would be too extreme and philosophical for them. Too much of a strain on the brain. God forbid either Democrats or Republicans had to think for themselves. That's far too much work.

    Neither party really thinks in terms of ideas or fundamental philosophy. There is never any discussion of principles like ethics or human rights. Of course when the religious right thinks of 'ethics' they think of the bible. Of things like commandments from a supernatural being.

    Both groups are pragmatists through and through. Focusing only on narrow issues or pragmatically band-aiding various social problems with knee jerk solutions that even a child should realize will be full of unintended consequences. Or secret intended ones driven by corporate bribes.

Experience varies directly with equipment ruined.