5 ms·
Why are we back here every year, like clockwork? This is what, the 4th incarnation of this bill?
by hapless 11y ago
Why are we back here every year, like clockwork?
This is what, the 4th incarnation of this bill?
- MCRed 11y agoBecause government wants control, and while we have to raise a lot of awareness in a short period of time to bring pressure to the politicians on this issue... those who propose this legislation just go back when "Defeated" and rewrite it, put it forward under another name etc. I believe a lot of the stuff that was "defeated" in the past, got inserted into the recent "net neutrality" ruling that had the internets cheering! (800 pages if I recall, so I didn't read it to find out for sure.) They will not stop-- law enforcement types have permanent jobs and they're there each year claiming they need more and more control/surveillance.
- protomyth 11y agoYes, but the other thing is the short period of awareness does not end with the political destruction of the sponsors of the bill. We defeat the bill but the sponsor walks away unhurt. Why are they not vilified for their anti-constitutional behavior?
- Frondo 11y agoIt isn't "government," it's a handful of politicians who've been bribed (legally, by way of campaign contributions). Want to stop this from happening, and make our elected officials more responsive to the people who elect them? Fight for campaign finance reform. That one fight will do more to "fix government" at all levels (i.e. make it responsive to the people) than just about anything else.
- MrZongle2 11y ago"Why are we back here every year, like clockwork?" Because the people who want this as law are assuming that at some point they'll be able to sneak it past the American public.
- tptacek 11y agoClose; it's (I think) the third incarnation. Fun fact: the third incarnation is much worse than the second, which EFF/FFTF vigorously (and, I think, dishonestly) campaigned against. Virtually nobody who campaigns against these bills ever takes the time to read them, despite how remarkably easy it is now to read not only the bills but the amendments it collects as it goes through the legislative process. And still, as you can see on this very thread, most of what we get in the way of commentary is stuff about how this is being "snuck past the American people" --- as if 85%+ of Americans wouldn't automatically favor anything with the word "cybersecurity" in it. (I was ambivalent about CISPA, and am not ambivalent about CISA; CISA is a bad bill. I think CISPA's opponents bear some small responsibility for that badness.)
- slantedview 11y ago> despite how remarkably easy it is now to read You must have more free time than I do. I'm satisfied to let the EFF read it and base my conclusions off of theirs.
- tptacek 11y agoYikes.
- tedunangst 11y agoBecause there actually is a problem here that needs solving, but all the drama mongering keeps getting in the way?
- white-flame 11y agoBecause there's effectively no barrier to keep pushing this stuff over and over until it finally takes hold, whether out of outrage fatigue or dumb luck.
- grkvlt 11y agoBecause that's the way democratic legislatures work. If your law does not get approved, it means there's something in it that a majority does not like. Therefore there is an iterative process, actually in two parts, the first being amendments added as the bill is read, the second being re-submission of a modified version that it is hoped will be more appealling. The fact that something is submitted again and again with various modifications each time is not unusual, it is just government working as intended, making sure the things that become laws are, in fact, things we want to become laws.
- jon-wood 11y agoMy understanding of American politics is that often then amendments have very little to do with the law being enacted beyond their being the pay representatives get for voting the law in. I may be completely wrong on that, but if it is the case then I can't help feeling American politics is utterly corrupt.