Stop CISPA.

<Comment deleted by U.S. datasecurinet, please have a nice day.>

 

I like how all the companies that protested SOPA because it's is was immoral bailed when CISPA came out.

 

Because the language of the bill now doesn't allow for companies to be shut down because of content users post in those companies' public spaces.

Also http://www.forgehub.com/forum/general-chat/138429-cyber-intelligence-sharing-protection-act.html

...just sayin

 

Is it ironic that Facebook, a company about its users posting information publicly, supports secretly knowing everything about you by spying on you?

This bill is as justified as having the government require that you leave no corner unwatched on your property via security camera. *tsk tsk tsk*

 

It wont pass anyways.

 

You know what I really don't get about all this politics stuff? It's why the American government think they own everything...

The internet is a network. Nothing more, nothing less. The only thing the internet has that my small, virtual network I set up yesterday doesn't have is a vast array of global Internet Service Providers querying my thousand DNS/DHCP servers and issues every other tom/****/harry in the world with an unused IP Address... Who holds that address information doesn't own what's stored within those addresses. My home PC, connected to the internet, is just an address resolving somewhere on one of those many DNS servers and that doesn't make everything on my PC (which could become available to anyone else on the internet) belong to the American Government.

It might be a bit far-stretched from what the issue is in this thread, but it's getting that way with PIPA/SOPA/CISPA, they're all the same. It's just the American Government abusing the ability to shutdown the internet essentially because of their DNS servers hold key information and they're holding the World ransom for it.

 

You know what I don't get? Why do you need privacy? If you aren't doing anything illegal or immoral then why do you care if anyone has access to your information? Don't buy sex toys, prostitutes or mail order brides online and you'll be fine. As long as they aren't selling my information to businesses, I couldn't care less if the governments has access to it. Granted, there is always the tendency for governments to take things too far and the word "taliban" might have you throw in a "prison" in the middle of nowhere for 3 years while you're "interrogated", but that'd be the only thing I'd worry about.

Truthfully though, I'd rather see cameras on every street corner. Then maybe people wouldn't get abducted, raped and chopped into pieces. Or at the very least, we might actually stand a chance at catching the person before they do it again.

 

Can I see your credit-card statements for the last year?

 

I'm pretty sure it'll all go under when someone mentions to congress and the senate that it will make their mistresses and shady dealings public knowledge among every other politician in the U.S. Hell, Anon would have a field day hacking those nice servers with everyone's info in one place.

 

Wow, just wow...

The "you don't need privacy unless you're doing something wrong" argument? I'm genuinely quite appalled.

Your argument relies upon the idea that those in control of this surveillance are inherently moral in how they act with it. Based on your clear lack of faith in humanity based on your proposed need for such rigorous surveillance, why are those who get in to these positions magically worthy of such an important trust without second thought?

Also, what if I want to buy sex toys online? Why the **** shouldn't I? Or more importantly, why shouldn't I be able to do so without feeling like I'm being watched over and have it potentially used against me? You're basically saying that you're OK with the idea of not being allowed to do anything unless you're comfortable proclaiming it to anyone and everyone? That's not only abhorrent as an idea, but it's simply unmanageable, and shows a complete lack of insight in to basic human and social nature. I know this is a tired line in this case, but please for the love of god read 1984, or just study Stalinist Russia.

As for the cameras point, you might actually want to look around before assuming that they do as much good as first thought might indicate. This article, albeit from an odd source, nevertheless has a plethora of studies (these are government studies btw, not just hot-headed activist groups). This study is a UK Government assessment of whether cameras produce notable reductions in crime rate (bear in mind that the UK is a world leader in terms of public CCTV), and it's far from favourable in terms of your argument. What's particularly interesting is how the assessment of cost vs. effectiveness pans out, and actually the consensus seems to be that the cost is vast compared to any discernible effect. Food for thought.

 

If 1984 is too high of a reading, you can just read Animal Farm.
@everyone

 

I've read 1984. Sure, I was being a bit extreme but this stuff kind of bothers me. People hear about something, go "oo scary" and jump on the fear mongering bandwaggon. Yeah, you're right..putting faith in others to "do the right thing" isn't easy. As I mentioned in my post, Governments take things too far to "err on the side of caution" and people could end up in a hole in the ground with no finger nails because they googled terrorism for a school project. Combine this with the NDAA and you do have one hell of a scary situation.

My problem is people getting up in arms about something they hardly understand or without real reason other than "I don't want people to know my stuff". Phone numbers can be found publicly, addresses are public, names are in databases. Don't share information that you don't want tracked, especially now they you know people can track it. Anyone with that held illusion that the internet was "safe" doesn't deserve to be angry about this. As long as this doesn't lead to telemarketers calling me or people stealing my money, it doesn't bother me. I'm not about to tell them what makes me tick so they can push me into committing murders on their behalf or something lol.

I know I'm being a little outrageous here but how much is one life worth? Catch one murder and give on family peace. Stop that guy from committing any future crimes. I'm just speaking from going through an experience of something that happened in my home town not too long ago. If there had of been one more camera 20 feet down the road, the guy would be in jail already. But, if we're cutting costs here I guess it's in our best interests not to catch him. Don't have to pay for the rest of his life in jail. Hopefully he won't kill anyone else. Again, I know I'm being extreme.

Also, you're more than welcome to buy as many dildos as you'd like Peg, I was just saying that if you want to buy dildos, be man enough to admit it. I don't really think you should be doing anything you're embarrassed of.

@transhuman: Sure, all you'd see is fast food and gas. Though I'd never post it here, since it being the internet I'd like be a victim of fraud. So as long as the Governments' keeping my info and not selling it businesses I'll be okay. Besides, if they did try to do something sneaky like take me (and others) for a ride with fraud, you really don't think hackers wouldn't find out? News always breaks these days.

 

...I don't think you're quite understanding the "why" behind all of this. Why the internet and groups like the ACLU, Internet Society, and all sorts of free rights groups get all up in arms over these kind of things. Precedent is a strong concept. It is precedent that lays the groundwork for either great or bad things. Just take the Citizen's United court case a few years ago. With that case came the creation of Super Packs and a new age of money influencing politics. Roe v Wade still decides a large number of court decisions every day. The language of this bill and those that came before it is meant as a catch-all. The problem with a "catch-all" bill is the internet is an international entity and a very complex one at that. The original structure of bills as applied to controlling commerce of States or Federal Government does not apply to something as large as the internet, at least not when phrased in such a way as to trump all other laws safeguarding people's privacy.

I wish every bill, law, statute, proposal, etc that had the potential for wrong doing got the attention they deserved but they don't and many of them slip though the cracks. Do I hear this level of cynicism toward them (Maybe once some person who read a news story reblogs it or posts it on digg/reddit)? No, because you don't hear the "fear mongering" for them. How do you think initiatives happen? Do you think they happen by every person in the world getting some memo the instant an injustice happens? No, initiatives take time and focused effort to gain attention. You're also selectively ignoring all the articles and sources that show both sides of an issue in objective and nonbiased manner to just focus on those that are "fear mongering".

Right...because I'm sure you deeply research every single thing someone has ever told you about anything. Heard some snippet of information over a water cooler, or dinner table, or maybe while hanging out with friends and in every one of those instances, instead of forming an on the spot perspective or opinion I'm sure you researched what was being talked about extensively so you could have a weighed, balanced, perspective on it. All the information is out there it isn't that hard to access so I'm not sure what level of "hardly understanding" you think goes on.

People can request not to have their phone numbers or addresses listed, that is a right people have. People's names in databases are completely controllable by those people. They can choose not to be in whatever database at any time. Also, again you are misrepresenting the issue at hand. You know those "terms of services" agreements. Well they aren't just long ass things you click "I agree" to that has tons of small print meant to **** you over. It also has detailed information about privacy concerns. The proposed bill would have the capability to null and void that. The practicality of that happening to you or anyone we know is remote but again, not the point. Precedent. One bill leads to another bill that builds on another bill each one further degrading civil liberties because if one got through the cracks why not others?

...so why bring it up? I'd say extreme to the level of being irrelevant to the topic at hand but whatever.

 

Omg, you know what I just realized?

If I have to sit here and listen to this crap, I'm gonna need a stronger drink. ;D

+rep for whoever gets the quote.

This seems like another attempt to get us all to worry about something that won't happen.

 

I can agree with this. It's just as easy to take something that actually changes very little and tout it as 1984 put in to action. Thing is, plenty of people on both sides of any debate are going to be stupid, but if you can sit down and explain how CISPA doesn't enact anything not already possible (or nothing significant) then that'll go a lot further towards making your point imo.

It's not even about how much one life is worth, but how money can be better spent to achieve the same effect (i.e. less money for the same results, or the same money for better results). One of the main arguments of activism groups when it comes to the cost efficiency of CCTV is how much better results can be when that same money is spent on improving policing in other ways, such as more actual officers out on the streets and a better approach to dealing with the evidence they have.

The idea that a camera in the right place either A) guarantees, or even close to guarantees, a crime being prevented, or B) guarantees, or even close to guarantees, that any assailant is caught if the crime is committed, is presumptuous and, imo, shortsighted. Are you so sure that a camera being there would have caught him? If so then again I think that's either misplaced or premature faith. People have been committing crimes and not wanting to get caught since long before CCTV, and putting a hood up is hardly difficult. This is especially pertinent when it comes to street robbery, a common reference point for promoting CCTV, as it's not that hard to make CCTV footage as useless as a statement, i.e. equating to little more than a description of clothing and a rough height.

I feel that you're letting this example you refer to colour your view a little. When you talk about how much a life is worth, it opens up a can of worms. When you see this kind of thing happen, it really brings home how horrible such things are, and how much they need to be stopped. In such circumstances, who wouldn't develop such a conviction on the issue as to, if they had the choice, throw as much money as possible to catch whoever did it? Thing is, where does that money come from? What about when it comes out of the budget for solving the multitude of other crimes? There aren't finite resources for these things, and it's a lot easier to be indignant about why something wasn't done when you've got a perspective on one particular example, and aren't the one having to make the difficult choice of what to spend money on.

The fact remains that CCTV is only ever a tool, but one which is increasingly, mistakenly seen as more than that. People seem to think that if you throw money at CCTV it'll generate arrests, when actually the emphasis needs to be on using that evidence, and getting better response times (which takes people, not cameras). Cameras are shiny, and people can point at them and go "look, we're investing in your safety" without actually having to commit to that promise in more meaningful ways. I know you can well say that this is the fault of those who use the cameras, rather than them being useless in themselves, but again it comes back to resources, i.e. money in the basic sense. It's not a case of "how much a life is worth", which frankly is getting to the kind of needlessly emotive and impractical angle I expect out of PETA and the like, but the fact that any given police force will have a finite budget. What you spend that money on is the important thing, and too often people assume if you throw the money at cameras it'll magically generate arrests. Spending 10% of that money on cameras and the rest on improving the infrastructure and force attitudes, practices and even sheer numbers that work around those cameras will often produce much better results.

First off, I love how you think sex toys = dildos. There's a whole world out there, man .

Tbh I'd be happy to admit it, but is there anything wrong with that being conditional? I'll talk to my friends about my sex-life in a very different way from how I'd talk about it with a random stranger, or (more importantly) how much I'd be comfortable having information collected on me by and organisation. Information which I have no right to request and, let's face it, is probably going to be sold to other organisations. I know that what you buy for your sex life isn't exactly the same as how you live that sex life, but surely you can see the parallel.

"I don't really think you should be doing anything you're embarrassed of."

Oh how I wish, how I WISH I could enforce that statement on your private life for the rest of your life. Some people truly are happy to admit the kinkiest aspect of their life to any stranger on the street, and more power to them, but that's a real minority. Are you really sure you're one of them? Have you lived enough of your life and experienced enough to be sure of that anyway?

 

Http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-5...cispa-amendments-do-little-to-appease-critics

Because, you know, Homeland Security did just a fine job with the Patriot Act and all those wiretaps.

 

^ Yup. It's about the necessity and purpose of the law. I'd be very interested to see the figures for how many arrests/detentions/investigations carried out under anti-terror legislation actually involved crimes related to terror, and how many "just to happened" to result in the authorities finding completely unrelated things by abusing such legislation. I'm not gonna pretend this is a US specific problem either. There's been a lot of **** in the UK as well, like when that old guy was removed from the Labour Party conference and detained under anti-terror laws, for what basically amounted to old-person-heckling.

Basically, don't let your indignation at specific incidents, no matter how horrific, get in the way of your caution vs. trust mentality. It's pretty easy to notice a pattern. Horrific yet rare occurrences are used as justification for things (laws, types of surveillance etc.) which end up being used for other purposes, ones which would never warrant such draconian legislation in the eyes of the population if it weren't for these horrific incidents, which can be spun to make them seem absolutely necessary.

 

Too many walls of text in this thread now.

Chrs, the reason I put that paragraph first is because I dislike the fact that the American government are trying to get out of debt and they suddenly thought of making every other country world-wide pay for a network, which they (the rest of the world) represent 99% of. It's like me saying your country was owned by the British Isle's 200 years ago and there's still our oxygen over your country. Therefore, we need to bill you for all of our air that you're breathing. The internet is accessible and can be hosted anywhere in the world, just because some of it's main servers are in the U.S and a lot of heavy traffic sites are based in the U.S, doesn't mean it's their's to lockdown and charge everyone else for it's usage.