CISPA A COPY OF SOPA

Posts

Pages: first prev 123 next last
updates
the bill passed its first stage...
oh no!!!
chana
(Socrates would certainly not contadict me!)
1584
Is there any resistance to this happening besides people talking about it in forums? Where are the site blackouts that occured for SOPA/PIPA? What about Anonymous? Does anybody give a damn anymore?

This is why shit always find itself in the fan.
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
author=Dyhalto
Is there any resistance to this happening besides people talking about it in forums? Where are the site blackouts that occured for SOPA/PIPA? What about Anonymous? Does anybody give a damn anymore?
Nada on all accounts as far as I can see.

Can't count on the IT industry either, most of them are supporting CISPA unlike its SOPA/PIPA cousins.
It does not matter, it will go whether we want to stop it or not.
To explain it in a way that may seem profoundly an utterly unsound or not:
"It is like a bogeyman. You see, whether they do it or not does not matter as long as that person is there, he is going to try to get them one way or another."
Most people have given up, and what can they do? The united states and various agents of the united states has proven that they will do whatever they like when they want to, despite the outcry of it own citizens.

After all, after that nasty incident during the 90s where the US government shot and killed a ten year old boy, a mother and the baby she held in her arms was not enough to convince you, maybe the massacre in Texas that followed directly was not enough proof. We are talking about a government that kills its own citizens freely, and then tries to make those citizens look like terrorists, all underneath the firm resolve of a illusion of justice.

author=Dyhalto
Is there any resistance to this happening besides people talking about it in forums? Where are the site blackouts that occured for SOPA/PIPA? What about Anonymous? Does anybody give a damn anymore?

This is why shit always find itself in the fan.

No. They probably just realized there was little they could do about it. How can you stop something that continually reappears time and time again? Easy. You throw the progenitors of the idea out, but as they reign on high, we best just accept what they pass.
From Wikipedia:
the bill is designed to protect against unauthorized access to networks or systems, including unauthorized access aimed at stealing private or government information

So you guys get mad over the hackers attacking Sony and Valve, but when CISPA comes around - a great shot at reducing these hackers - you guys get mad at it. Seems legit to me. SOPA and PIPA are far worse offenders compared to this.

Don't attach blanket -statements such as "closing down teh internetz" to things you don't know,

Basically the National Security Act of 1947 (which you guys don't seem to oppose), does not cover the internet. The internet has been left out of the legal system for decades and causes much concern for citizens of countries and the stuff they do on the internet. Hence SOPA/PIPA and this CISPA.

Nothing is perfect or good, but if there's always stasis then the internet becomes an increasingly unsafe place to conduct business every year. I grow very concerned when my banking info gets stolen by signing up for steam. (Thankfully this hasn't happened). But when it does, who do I blame? The Government for trying to reduce this or for the people who think it removes from their "freedom". The internet in all honesty can be closed down via a big ol' off switch. This act will undoubtedly affect the markets and communications, but your privacy is left intact. Freedom is also a loose term since the years of non-regulation has made the internet a very open environment.

Personally I don't know if I should support this or not. But one thing is clear you WILL keep seeing these acts pop up until something everyone is happy with comes about. The internet needs to be added into the constitution somehow. At the very least I am for putting the internet into the legislation somehow.
Given that our legislative facilities, in the interest of "national security", have brought America the Patriot Act, the TSA's body scanners (comes with free groping pat downs), and the recent NDAA indefinite detention clause, you'll have to excuse me for being skeptical of the ability of the US House of Reps, Senate, and Puppet to provide any form of "protection" or "security".
But we'll set my disposition aside, because you want to talk business.

Let's assume that national security is threatened by a free and open internet.
How so?
We have yet to see that major "cyber attack" that pundits prattle on about, or any of that shit from Die Hard 4. Our elected representatives have proven their technological illiteracy with comments such as "The internet is a series of tubes". These are the type of people who believe their eletric toothbrush is connected to the internet because it's plugged into the wall.
Essentially, we have a situation where there is no set precedent to justify the creation of an intrusive supranational regulatory authority, and neither is there anyone in the legislatures web-savvy enough to understand the ramifications of what they vote for or against. Given that poorly conceived laws undermine faith in the system of law, I'd rather not see the internet wrecked and beaten while waiting for mankind to finally come to the consensus that "maybe we should have thought this through" and tries to amend something that's busted.

Next up, the internet has no place in a national constitution, unless it's "Hands off!". I used the word supranational earlier, because that's what the internet is. Is it okay for the US to send stormtroopers into Australia to bust your hacking ass? Maybe it's cool with the Aussie government because they're on good terms, but what about China? Or Venezuela? Or how about the Aussie government sending stormtroopers into Manhattan? There's a lot of friction to be had when you start asserting your land's laws into other lands.
I suppose you could argue for something like a UN Department of Der Innernets Security, but the UN sucks. Fuck them.

And cyber-crime? There's only one thing a hack, a DDOS, a contagious virus, and a stolen password have in common. They all fall under the broad lable of "cyber-crime". Each one is radically different and should be treated on a case-by-case basis, just like real crime is. There is no singular method that will bust it all, and don't let the special interests tell you otherwise.
Given that all the bureaucrats can come up with to "combat cyber-crime" is to spy on you and watch everything everybody does, it only brings us back to my point about technologically illiterate dolts trying to regulate something they can't even begin to comprehend.
Besides. If you're worried about your banking info being stolen, don't bank online. Alternatively, seeing as most stolen account info is due to people using same or similiar passwords, don't use the same password for your important stuff as you do for that forum you signed up for but never posted on 2 years ago. You don't have a master key for your apartment, car, mailbox, locker, etc. so why would anyone expect security from a master password?


TL;DR - I made a long post again. Don't mind me.
I most certainly agree with everything that Dyhalto said here. Everytime I try to express my view however, I am bogged down by history, so I am grateful he explained it so admirably.
I'll make a short post! FBI wants to make backdoors into Internet services for government surveillance.

CNET Article
In meetings with industry representatives, the White House, and U.S. senators, senior FBI officials argue the dramatic shift in communication from the telephone system to the Internet has made it far more difficult for agents to wiretap Americans suspected of illegal activities, CNET has learned.

The FBI general counsel's office has drafted a proposed law that the bureau claims is the best solution: requiring that social-networking Web sites and providers of VoIP, instant messaging, and Web e-mail alter their code to ensure their products are wiretap-friendly.

"If you create a service, product, or app that allows a user to communicate, you get the privilege of adding that extra coding," an industry representative who has reviewed the FBI's draft legislation told CNET. The requirements apply only if a threshold of a certain number of users is exceeded, according to a second industry representative briefed on it.

(Emphasis Mine)
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
Essentially, bitching that China is wiretapping the USA while the USA wants to wiretap its citizens. Brilliant irony or brilliant idiocy? Either way I call bullshit.
Dyhalto: So were international waters prior to WWII. I think the internet while being supranational doesn't mean it can't/shouldn't be regulated. Zones can be be put on the internet, in fact they are already there behind the scenes. Egypt proved they could stop a particular country from gaining access to the web.

CISPA may not be the answer, but having a high-level security layer added to the constitution that regards the internet would be appropriate.

And the internet is not involuntarily supranational. It's a product of the USA; shared among the inhabitants of Earth. Unlike say, oceans or landmasses which predate mankind.

You are right on the web-savvy-ness of the representatives, they would not know the ramifications of their decisions... or they know it all too well and had plans to bend it like they usually do. I believe in good honest politics, but that's sadly not today's politics. In a better world I'd like to see the internet incorporated into the constitution, but I don't think that will happen until we get more and frequent younger-generation representatives and senators in office (which should take a generation or two).
I read into the Internet vs The 20th Century conflict a little more differently than "international waters". The way I look at it, the open and dynamic nature of the internet is practically uncontrollable by the obsolete methods of current control mechanisms. It's a wide open frontier, available to anybody with the fortitude to settle it.
I liken it to the discovery of the Americas and the US revolution. The old interests situated back in the British Empire wanted to manage the colonies like they managed everything else up until then, but the methods they used were too far removed, inefficient, and eventually became tyrannical. Naturally, the people got fed up, kicked the old world interests out, and made their own country.
In the grand scheme of history as we watch it unfold over our lifetimes, I imagine that the internet will "win" in the end, in that world popular opinion will triumph over policy decisions of compromised bureaucrats and their monopolist proponents. What the future turns out to be, who knows? I'm personally hoping for a de-centralised direct democracy (where you know your elected rep on a first name basis), but we shall see.
Whatever the case, it probably won't happen before we have as-it-happens tracking of everything we do, backlogs of every link we've clicked, a myriad of obscure laws to provide justification for nighttime abductions, and ultimately, a kind of Internet ID where you can be suspended/expelled from the web in an age when internet access is becoming mandatory for participation in civil society.

author=Radnen
And the internet is not involuntarily supranational. It's a product of the USA; shared among the inhabitants of Earth. Unlike say, oceans or landmasses which predate mankind.

This is irrelevant now. You can draw the same comparison to boats invented by Bob Boat or any other technology.
KingArthur
( ̄▽ ̄)ノ De-facto operator of the unofficial RMN IRC channel.
1217
The internet is supranational in that "cyberspace" as a realm lies entirely outside the jurisdiction of any governing body currently in place. However, it's not supranational in that servers, cables, clients, and the basic infrastructure in general physically reside within territories held by various soverign countries. The aforementioned infrastructure have an obligation to obey local laws and those countries within which the infrastructure resides have the soverign right to control said infrastructure within their borders as they see fit.

Cyberspace (the internet) is independent of the real world, but the infrastructure constructing and supporting cyberspace is not.
^ True, but all you get from that type of law enforcement is offshore hosting like Pirate Bay. And with the IT ingenuity abundance on the web, pretty much all local enforcement walls/blocks/filters will be circumvented mere days after passing into law, as they were in Australia before it ever made it to law. Heck, it wouldn't surprise me if we see a CISPA-Buster software before long.

We're a long way away from any kind of World Internet Treaty where nobody holds out for the free market advantage. IMO, that's what's going to break the back of the old era.
Out of curiosity how many of you have read the bill in question? In the event there are any parties to the argument here who have not done so already,I'll take the liberty of posting a link to the bill. HR 3523 AKA CISPA

It's really not that long, just read it over. I recommend reading Section 2 Subsection h first since it defines the terms employed throughout the bill.
Nightowl
Remember when I actually used to make games? Me neither.
1577
Ah, bullshit. Everything will be okay.
author=jomarcenter
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/03/15/american-isps-to-launch-massive-copyright-spying-scheme-on-july-12/

Excerpt
"Participating ISPs have a range of options for dealing with customers who continue to pirate media, at that point: They can require that an alleged repeat offender undergo an educational course before their service is restored. They can utilize multiple warnings, restrict access to only certain major websites like Google, Facebook or a list of the top 200 sites going, reduce someone’s bandwidth to practically nothing and even share information on repeat offenders with competing ISPs, effectively creating a sort of Internet blacklist — although publicly, none of the network operators have agreed to “terminate” a customer’s service."

Shucks.
I was hoping to see indiscriminatory fines into the tens of thousands of dollars. I want to see family bankruptcies, separations, suicides, med overdoses, turn-to-crime stories, attempted hits, and everything else, all because 11-year old Sally downloaded a Bieber song. Then we might see shit done for.
I guess they know what they're doing after all.
BurningTyger
Hm i Wonder if i can pul somethi goff here/
1289
In the end since it's passed it's the best outcome we can hope for. And even if the Internet gets regulated to some degree the human spirit can
t'; be. We're a long way from Orwell and always will be as long as I can help it.
Pages: first prev 123 next last