The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
[CISPA]pocalypse
Distram
__BANNED USERS regular
__BANNED USERS regular
I was surprised there was no CISPA thred. So, I made one.
What's CISPA?In broad terms, CISPA is about information sharing. It creates broad legal exemptions that allow the government to share "cyber threat intelligence" with private companies, and companies to share "cyber threat information" with the government, for the purposes of enhancing cybersecurity. The problems arise from the definitions of these terms, especially when it comes to companies sharing data with the feds.
So is CISPA a surveillance bill?The bill specifically prohibits the government from requiring anyone to hand over information, or offering any sort of "quid pro quo" data sharing arrangement. Sharing information is voluntary, and as far as the bill's supporters are concerned, that should end the debate. Of course, as we've seen with things like the warrantless wiretapping scandal, complicity between companies and the government, even when legally questionable, is common and widespread. But even if the safeguards work, CISPA will undoubtedly allow for invasions of privacy that amount to surveillance.
Firstly, while the reps insist that the bill only applies to companies and not individuals, that's very disingenuous. CISPA states that the entity providing the information cannot be an individual or be working for an individual, but the data they share (traffic, user activity, etc.) will absolutely include information about individuals. There is no incentive in the bill to anonymize this data—there is only a clause permitting anonymization, which is meaningless since the choice of what data to share is already voluntary. Note that any existing legal protections of user privacy will not apply: the bill clearly states that the information may be shared "notwithstanding any other provision of law".
So we've got the government collecting this data, potentially full of identifying information of users in the U.S. and elsewhere, and they are free to use it for any of those broadly defined cybersecurity or national security purposes. But, it gets worse: the government is also allowed to affirmatively search the information for those same reasons—meaning they are by no means limited to examining the data in relation to a specific threat. If, for example, a company were to provide logs of a major attack on their network, the government could then search that information for pretty much anything else they want.
How can the government use the information?The original text of the bill was really bad, simply saying the government cannot use the information for "regulatory purposes." This was amended to be more restrictive, but not by much: now, the same broad "cybersecurity" definition applies to what they can use the data for, and as if that wasn't enough, they can also use it for "the protection of the national security of the United States." I don't need to tell you that the government is not exactly famous for narrowly interpreting "national security."
Okay, but what does that matter to me? Is it like SOPA?- CISPA has a very broad, almost unlimited definition of the information that can be shared with government agencies and it supersedes all other privacy laws.
- CISPA is likely to lead to expansion of the government’s role in the monitoring of private communications.
- CISPA is likely to shift control of government cybersecurity efforts from civilian agencies to the military.
- Once the information is shared with the government, it wouldn’t have to be used for cybersecurity, but could instead be used for other purposes.
New CISPA Bill Isn't SOPA, But Still Attacks Constitutional Rights
Can I read the actual bill?
Sure. http://rules.house.gov/media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CPRT-112-HPRT-RU00-HR3523.pdf
What are the chances of it passing?
Well it's already passed in the house. Here's who voted for and against: http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll192.xml#N
Distram on
0
Posts
Either way, its DOA at the White House.
What about a veto-proof majority? Like the NDAA.
Even if this happens, there's no pressing need for this bill to be signed, unlike the NDAA which has been blown way the fuck out of proportion and was the military spending bill for the entire year (rather important).
Obama could easily veto this and let Congress take the blame.
But I don't think the bill in its current form can pass the rest of the process in the first place.
All concerned should flood their congresscritters with letters and phone calls and emails and twits though.
I can only hope the Senate votes it down.
And, barring that, maybe Obama.
Though not likely. The elder gods have wanted control of information since the dawn of time. I doubt anything will stop them.
Don't let reality hurt your conspiracy theories.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
8->
This is part of the veto warning.
Color me not hopeful.
And here's some more:
I don't really give a shit if people aren't going to be able to pirate shit, but the protection of privacy is really the most important part here, not access to free shit.
*sigh* to go after Piracy they have to destroy privacy. This is exactly what SOPA/PIPA/ACTA/TPP are all about. Dismantling the fundamental internet model to ensure there's a spook in the middle to prevent you from doing things hollywood doesn't like. If they can do it for something as trivial as piracy, considered a very very fringe issue, then they absolutely will do it for everything else and there goes your privacy right out the window. Because the only way to catch pirates is to catch everyone doing everything. What makes you think somehow the government will not use this new tool in such a way?
It's not like we haven't seen Drones, or the Patriot act powers granted stick to their original "Fight terrorism only" roles despite express promises from many elected officials they would. What makes you think that this is one magically sequestered area of government power that will not eventually be further expanded because: "well, we're watching everyone now...why don't we start using that data in more places since we have it anyway?"
2.) Just pointing out that Obama said he'd veto it.
3.) Not really interested in getting into a conspiracy talk.
The whole thing seems to be the same boat, grant wide immunity/allow telcos to just hand over information without a warrant. I'm appauled that theres language that says if they fuck up and accidently loose the information and it goes public that they are immune as well. HIPPA type protection really should apply to most personal information.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Most things your told to be scared shitless of are already happening. That doesn't make them good, but it removes some of the credibility of chicken littles.
I never said it was good, but I have yet to see everyone who posts on 4chan taken out behind a barn and shot.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Another failure of the Obummer administration.
=p
But seriously, all I feel about this bill a sense of unpleasent apathy.
If the MPAA uses it to target pirates, they'll literally have to go after most everyone under the age forty.
The Government has neither the time nor the resources to hunt down everyone jerking it to Backdoor Sluts 19 on Explicitube or whatever. And until Santorum becomes the High Priestedent of Isralica, no one in the Government will give a shit.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
To be fair, as I said it was a sore spot with me that he ran on this to get elected (holding telcos accountable) and then gave immunity, veto'ing this would put in a step towards good faith.
You're talking about a business organization that is pursuing an aggressive strategy of demonizing and criminalizing it's user base (as a whole) as well as making their titles less appealing via DRM designed to harm legitimate user's viewing experience (while pirates just strip that shit right out.) You seem to be vastly over-estimating intelligence or rather under-estimating the arrogance of this group. I'm quite sure the government doesn't have the resources, reading SOPA/PIPA I am also quite sure they firmly do not care either. They will be back with another bill just like it too in another few years if not sooner. They want this shit to end, yesterday, and if they have to pay for it by bringing back sentences of indentured servitude to recoup damages from everyone (it'd be cheaper than keeping up with collections and cheaper than jail time), I am sure they will try. Now, I don't know if they'll succeed, but they'll sure as hell keep trying so long as they have the money to.
I'm just in a rare realistically optimistic mood this morning.
Thanks, Obama.
...
No, seriously. Thanks, Obama.
I'm talking about a group going after the majority of the public. They'll fail. The tighter they squeeze their fist, the more people will squeeze through their fingers.
I hate to qoute Whedon, but you can't stop the signal. The best the MPAA can do is pass feel good bullshit like SOPA and CISPA and OOMPA and LOOPA and so on and so forth. They're trying to scoop out a desert with a sifter.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I like how the economic interests of companies such as Google end up affecting legislation in ways that benefit people.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
You know, I like Google. I realize they have their own shitty methods with some things, and that they track EVERYTHING you do, so it's a bit hypocritical to like them, and then be against shit like CISPA, etc. But, by and large, they've stuck by their tenant of "Don't Be Evil", and for that I'm fairly grateful.
This would a bit like trying to convince a rapist that they should try masturbation instead because: "It'll be just as fun as rape, but nobody gets hurt!" It entirely misses the reason why rape is committed. (power/entitlement)
They (the *AAs) feel entitled to those profits, they feel entitled to recoup money from every sale at full retail. (Why the hell do you think the next generation of consoles will ban used games? The content industry wants its pound of flesh damnit! ;p) According to them, it's their property, why shouldn't they be able to charge whatever they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want, for absolutely any reason they want?
Google and Wikipedia leading the SOPA blackout was what arguably stopped that law from being passed but if the current patent wars with Apple/Oracle are any indication I think the business world is trying it's level best to destroy or corrupt Google to the point it will stop interfering. So whether this holds up forever is anyone's guess.
It's important to remember that Google / WIkipedia did that to help themselves, and not you, the home viewer.
But it'll take some massive campaign finance reform for that to happen, so until that day, we write our Congresscritters and lobby. Lobby like the whores we've become.
Corporations are people, my friend!
Edit:
I will kill you. I will come through this internet and I will kill you.
There is only one thing corporations care about: profit, and the protection there of. It is more profitable to keep a consumer base happy then it is to alienate them.
This is basic logic.
Believe it or not, corporations are not Captain Planet villains. They are groups of people who have achieved wealth and power. They are not stupid.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
I'm pretty sure the GOP, mostly teapers, will push hard to keep the objectionable parts in while keeping out the revisions out of spite. Knowing the dumbasses, they'll try pedaling any veto as Obama being weak on security. I do hope that's the route they go because I'm pretty sure most people opposed to their regressive agenda will be able to rip them several new ones in the PR sphere amongst moderates and independents.
You're also not thinking about profit correctly, you're thinking of raw dollar signs and not of margins. Right now Hollywood has a very good rate of return on its investments and they don't want any new technology or outside player to disrupt that. Take a look at what they're doing to the VOD market right now. The studios at first jumped at Netflix and now they're purposefully pulling titles, and trying to fragment the market, why? Because if there is no dominant player the studios can dictate the terms to each of the VOD websites it wants to sell to and it'll have enough players that there'll always be someone willing to play their game. They learned from the folly of iTunes and letting Apple get too powerful (we have them to thank for a stable 0.99$ per song to this day, if Steve Jobs did not negotiate like a Mob don with the RIAA we would see prices rising constantly, which now that he's gone might happen.)
They want piracy dead in the water because a major part of how the studios make money is controlling time/location of release of a film. They've very carefully staged releases, they go from theater, to pay-per-view, to DVD, to premium movie channels, basic cable, and maybe finally regular broadcast TV (But edited down for time/content.) and include Video On Demand somewhere in there (different depending on studio.) Video on Demand and services like Netflix/Hulu will stick around but so long as piracy exists it disrupts their release channel and that is how they make such a high rate of return on such horrible films. They charge every person in that chain for the "privilege" of accessing their content, even if you yourself don't get charged.
This is why the "property" mindset I mentioned in my previous post is basically true. They make their money based on a very structured sort of artificial scarcity and so while you're right they could monetize piracy and perhaps increase the number of legitimate purchases of content it'd still most likely end up resulting in lower profit margins since it'd cut into their tiered release strategy where they extract money from everyone else along that chain as well as you the consumer (usually.) If you'll notice neither the MPAA or RIAA has stopped it's zealous anti-piracy quest, they've just been trying lately to pass the cost off onto the U.S. Taxpayer in the form of these new laws because they realized they couldn't possibly have the funds or really the legal tools needed to find/prosecute and jail enough pirates on their own. I think it's you who seems to over-estimate the *AAs. ;p
http://m.zdnet.com/blog/violetblue/how-sopa-protests-were-used-to-push-cispa/1257
And forgive my cynicism, AMan. I just don't see Obama really veto'ing it should it get that far. The *AA's are going to get their anti-piracy bill, and the gov't is going to piggyback on their ability to spy on people, one way or another.