CISPA Cybersecurity Bill, currently in the United States Congress

[Twiddly]

Facebook/IBM/Microsoft all support CISPSA because it takes away there liablity if anyone does anything wrong.

http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/t...out-you-719091


no sopa like blackouts from any site owned/run by those companies. Also supports my theory that facebook is inherently evile.

[The Madgod]

Hell probably sign it being the shill he is, but if he doesn't it will make him better than Romney I guess

I doubt he will soley because he's said he will veto it. if he doesn't, the Republicans have some major ammo against him, and with elections this year, that's not something he can afford to do if he wants to get reelected.

[Carnaby]

The senate won't approve. If it makes it to Obama, he'll let it linger on the media's mind for a week before he doesn't approve it acting as if he just did a great service to the US and hoping to get votes out of it. Politics are pretty damn predictable.

If he doesn't approve it then he would be doing a great service to the US.

[araine]

Why do they let people who don't know what the internet is vote on laws about the internet?

Never made sense to me.

Cause thats the result you get when you vote in old white GOP men to Washington, They probably have never heard of internet. And they view it as some communist conspiracy to inform the masses so they cant be controlled anymore.

[nyc81991]

I really hope this bill doesn't become Law. CISPA is 100x worse than SOPA ever was.

Seeing how Obama passed the NDAA I wouldn't be surprised if he does sign it in. Unless enough people tell him not to, In that case he will not sign it to save himself.

[Twiddly]

Cause thats the result you get when you vote in old white GOP men to Washington, They probably have never heard of internet. And they view it as some communist conspiracy to inform the masses so they cant be controlled anymore.

Look at the people voting for it. Please, leave parties out of a partiless discussion.

"The final tally was 248-168, enough to pass the measure but not enough to override the threatened veto. Forty-two Democrats broke with the White House to vote for the bill, and 28 Republicans voted against it."

Yes, more Republicans voted for it. Does not mean quite a few Democrats did not as well.


Your propaganda talk is foolish when you do not actually research the topic.

[wdmshmo]

Why do they let people who don't know what the internet is vote on laws about the internet?

Never made sense to me.

Hmm.. I'm not too fond of this, but there's no fun to be had until one gets far enough into the web, where the trouble you're afraid of getting into isn't necessarily government based repercussion anyways.

[Twiddly]

You want to help fight CISPA? Boycott Facebook. Delete your profile and tell them why.

---------- Post added 2012-04-26 at 11:27 PM ----------

"Langevin and other supportive Democrats say CISPA is needed to counter the possibility of a major cyberattack.

"This is not a perfect bill, but the threat is great," Ruppersberger said on the House floor on Thursday."


Terrifying comments. Do they even understand what this bill is? They think it is against online terorrism? Good lord.

[nyc81991]

You want to help fight CISPA? Boycott Facebook. Delete your profile and tell them why.

---------- Post added 2012-04-26 at 11:27 PM ----------

"Langevin and other supportive Democrats say CISPA is needed to counter the possibility of a major cyberattack.

"This is not a perfect bill, but the threat is great," Ruppersberger said on the House floor on Thursday."


Terrifying comments. Do they even understand what this bill is? They think it is against online terorrism? Good lord.

Anything for my controll and to keep the American people in the dark.

They either have no idea what the internet is or they feel threatened by it. (I pick the second one)

[Twiddly]

Facebook/IBM/Microsoft all support CISPSA because it takes away there liablity if anyone does anything wrong.

http://www.technolog.msnbc.msn.com/t...out-you-719091


no sopa like blackouts from any site owned/run by those companies. Also supports my theory that facebook is inherently evile.

"I hate CISPA I think it should be stopped! I better check my facebook" people are just part of the problem at this point.

[Grizzly Willy]

Wonder if Wikipedia and Google are going to say anything about this.

[Twiddly]

Wonder if Wikipedia and Google are going to say anything about this.

http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/0...say-which-way/


So they are lobbying for or against it, they just will not say which. "Google spent a good deal of time fighting the Stop Online Piracy Act, better known by its acronym ‘SOPA,’ which brought the issues relating to privacy from a legal perspective to minds of many; that Google may be supporting CISPA might anger those who had thought that the search giant was on their team."

"Google is going to have to take a position on CISPA in the next few days, or its silence will be construed as support, given Rogers’ statement. We’ll bring you their perspective when they make it known."


Pretty sure if they were against it they would just say so.



Interesting article on how they designed CISPA to be more resilient against people protesting/against it: http://www.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue...ush-cispa/1257


kind of sickening that they KNOW that the law will be extremely unpopular, so they research ways to make it more resilient to people against it...who is our congress working for again?

---------- Post added 2012-04-26 at 11:52 PM ----------

Seriously. read that second link. They tried to influence reporters to simply not talk about it so nobody would know it was even happening...


"CISPA’s people seem to have learned from SOPA that trying to ram an internet bill down our throats didn’t work out so well last time.

So this time they were open to hearing our concerns.

Okay, not really. But here’s how they pretended to listen to our serious concerns when we got two pro-CISPA reps from Washington face-to-face last week.

A pro-CISPA senior U.S. House of Representatives aide and pro-CISPA senior counsel to the House Intelligence Committee Jamil Jaffer appeared via Google Hangout at the last-minute Town Hall.

See also: CISPA cybersecurity bill ‘not being rushed through,’ aide says (CNET)
Today’s news: Insanity: CISPA Just Got Way Worse, And Then Passed On Rushed Vote (Techdirt)

After hearing what they had to say in response to our concerns, they could barely pretend they were there for little more than lip service.

Near the end, many of us in the room were laughing in nervous disbelief at their cavalier and dismissive responses."


Absolutely sickening.[COLOR="red"]

Sorry had a weird double post issue.


Another interesting link: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...n-passed.shtml

[namelessone]

Gods, I HATE when they mention "protection of the children" when discussing bills. It's such a cheap way to make it "appealing", it should be obvious to any moron. I'd love if the made it mandatory to include "protecting the children" as a reason for EVERY bill, so that this retarded practice comes to an end.

[Twiddly]

Gods, I HATE when they mention "protection of the children" when discussing bills. It's such a cheap way to make it "appealing", it should be obvious to any moron. I'd love if the made it mandatory to include "protecting the children" as a reason for EVERY bill, so that this retarded practice comes to an end.

Just like the "PATRIOT" act; dont vote for it? Clearly in league with the TERORRISTSSS!!

[This name sucks]

They are capitalizing the shit out of the fear that everyone has now after 9/11 in the form of monopolies and censoring the closest thing anyone has ever gotten to free speech (internet)

Pulling that "either you're with us or against us" shit about terrorism every time the government starts this kind of thing is really old and you'd think people would catch onto that after 11 years.

Crying "CHILREN" at every opportunity is a horrible dirty practice as well.

Also pretty sure it was the same guy who proposed pipa sopa and now cispa. Might want to have something done about that guy when his term is up.

[huey]

I doubt he will soley because he's said he will veto it. if he doesn't, the Republicans have some major ammo against him, and with elections this year, that's not something he can afford to do if he wants to get reelected.

He was against the patriot act until he was for it. He was against the individual mandate until he was for it. He would veto the indefinite detention bill until he signed it. It will take more than posturing to make me think this will be any different, especially with all the high profile supporters like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Facebook.

Republicans will have a hard time selling this as an election point when so many republicans in the house supported bill, and got paid by the lobbyist accordingly. 206 republicans voted yes, 28 voted no. They were very much on the wrong side of this issue, and it'll probably be the same side as the Obama administration. I'm not sure if it'll pass the senate or not but Schumer and Reid got a million between them to support it. McCain got 250K. Boxer got another quarter of a million. That's a lot of leadership getting paid for some results.

[Prag]

Obama won't sign it. He knows the only votes he has are the young Americans. Since they're the people majorly affected, he'll probably veto it and ask for a re-write.

[semaphore]

I hope Obama vetoes it, but I won't hold my breath.

[drukai]

I really hope this bill doesn't become Law. CISPA is 100x worse than SOPA ever was.

Seeing how Obama passed the NDAA I wouldn't be surprised if he does sign it in. Unless enough people tell him not to, In that case he will not sign it to save himself.

I feel this important to point out. Obama SIGNED the NDAA, he did not pass it. It had a super majority vote, he could NOT have veto'd it, and more to the point, if he hadn't signed it, that would mean that the military had no funding for a period of time, and while I disagree with the clause in the NDAA that everyone seems to think is the entirety of the NDAA, I believe wholeheartedly that not giving the military money while the military is supposed to be doing something (no matter what my opinion on what they are doing,) is even more important than some law that doesn't change anything for US citizens (the SUPREME COURT had stated well before the NDAA that with presidential authority, US citizens can be detained indefinitely, it's not a new law, nothing has changed unless you're directly involved with terrorist groups, in which case IDGAF about you anyways.)


Also, the White House has already released a statement saying that Obama's Chief Technology advisors would strongly urge him to veto the bill, and yes, that does mean that Obama himself has not said he would veto the bill just yet, but it means the same thing.

[Wells]

Crazy shit passes the house all the time. The place is a barrel of monkeys. Don't get worried until the Senate starts debating it.