12 ms·
CISA passes Senate
- givan 11y agoWhat is the bigger picture here, what is really happening? Europe also wants to regulate internet traffic, at the same time an internet law is passed and both us and europe want a broader commerce union with TIPP. Are all these tools implemented to eventually censor people who will disagree with all that is coming with this new union? something like china does with everything that is against the party? what are they trying to do to our society with these baby steps?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- atomi 11y agoEnormous multi-national corporations should not function as an extension of our Government. This is the separation of church and state debate all over again.
- adventured 11y agoSure, the US needs a separation of state and economy for the same exact reason and state and church - any mingling generates intense, dangerous corruption. You'll never see that separation however, because 2/3+ of the political class are heavy statists that like to accumulate perpetually greater amounts of power - and to accumulate power, you must have control over the economy.
- Umn55 11y ago"Enormous multi-national corporations should not function as an extension of our Government" You've demonstrated you're completely historically illiterate. It has always been thus, you're just becoming aware of it. From war is a racket: "I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10] "War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23] "The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24] General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home. http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/dp/0922915865/ http://www.amazon.com/War-Racket-Antiwar-Americas-Decorated/... US distribution of wealth https://imgur.com/a/FShfb https://imgur.com/a/FShfb http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html The Centre for Investigative Journalism http://www.tcij.org/ http://www.tcij.org/ Some history on US imperialism by us corporations. https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-history-of-imperialism-and-state-violence-in-colombia/ https://kurukshetra1.wordpress.com/2015/09/27/a-brief-histor...
- atomi 11y agoI'm not sure how you came to conclude that I wasn't aware of the long history of corporate and government collusion. My point is very clear, it shouldn't be legal.
- Umn55 11y agoThe problem you're not seeing is that no law will ever be passed that goes against it because the rich people that have been ruling you for the past 200+ years don't want it. You don't seem to be historically literate at all. I suggest chomsky. And the book by the trilateral commission. Book link: http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf Crisis of democracy - chomsky https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYFxtNgOeiI Manufacturing consent: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwU56Rv0OXM https://vimeo.com/39566117 https://vimeo.com/39566117
- msellout 11y agoI think you've got it backwards. For the last 200 years, the government has mostly functioned as an extension of wealthy people/corporations. Heck, the revolutionaries of the Boston Tea Party were upset that legally imported British tea was cheaper than the colonists' smuggled Dutch tea. The USA was founded by merchants trying to avoid competition.
- atomi 11y agoWell yeah, the US government has a mandate to protect commerce.
- MikeKusold 11y agoThe tech world badly needs the equivalent of the NRA. We need to routinely be grading politician voting records [1] on privacy focused bills. If a politician votes against privacy, then they should be forced to fear a highly contested re-election. If it works for guns and the tea-party, then why can't it work for tech? [1] https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/ https://www.nrapvf.org/grades/
- smegger001 11y agoYou mean like the EFF...
- schoen 11y agoEFF is a 501(c)(3) organization, which isn't permitted to support or oppose candidates in an election. EFF can take a position on proposed legislation, but not on political candidates.
- MikeKusold 11y agoThe EFF is too splintered for this goal. They do fantastic work in courts, but they don't currently have the resources to lobby successfully. They began to start grading politicians, but it has since been neglected: https://standagainstspying.org/ https://standagainstspying.org/ That said, they are currently our best option. You can support them by donating ( https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/donate ) and setting them as your Amazon Smile charity.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- amock 11y agoAccording to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Finances https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Fin... the NRA receives the majority of its funding from small donors. I don't know what you consider "unbelievable", but it seems like the lack of corporate support wouldn't stop an organization like the NRA.
- benevol 11y agoThat's 1 more call for consumers not to use US companies for IT/Web related matters.
- beedogs 11y agoConsidering the US is also tapping every cable leading out of the country, where do you suggest folks take their business?
- wavefunction 11y agoI think OP means non-Americans should not patronize American businesses. Unfortunately though, much of the Internet's transit traffic passes through the US.
- mikehotel 11y agoDoes the final version produced by the conference committee require revotes in the House and Senate again before heading to the President for signature? The gap between US lawmakers and the EU is only widening when it comes to Privacy matters. This vote only lends more credence to the EU's decision earlier this month to scrap Safe Harbor [1]. [1] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/10/european_court_.html https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/10/european_cour...
- dragonwriter 11y ago> Does the final version produced by the conference committee require revotes in the House and Senate again before heading to the President for signature? Yes. The House and Senate must actually pass the same bill, not merely similar bills.
- mikehotel 11y agoThanks! So there is more time to voice concerns with elected representatives.
- aaronmhatch 11y agoWhat impact did Facebook's lobbying have on this?
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Amorymeltzer 11y agoThe final bill passed with a resounding 74-21 (https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291). Here's the list of people who voted for it: D Bennet, Michael CO D Blumenthal, Richard CT D Boxer, Barbara CA D Cantwell, Maria WA D Carper, Thomas DE D Casey, Bob PA D Donnelly, Joe IN D Durbin, Richard IL D Feinstein, Dianne CA D Gillibrand, Kirsten NY D Heinrich, Martin NM D Heitkamp, Heidi ND D Hirono, Mazie HI D Kaine, Timothy VA D Klobuchar, Amy MN D Manchin, Joe WV D McCaskill, Claire MO D Mikulski, Barbara MD D Murphy, Christopher CT D Murray, Patty WA D Nelson, Bill FL D Peters, Gary MI D Reed, John RI D Reid, Harry NV D Schatz, Brian HI D Schumer, Chuck NY D Shaheen, Jeanne NH D Stabenow, Debbie MI D Warner, Mark VA D Whitehouse, Sheldon RI I King, Angus ME R Alexander, Lamar TN R Ayotte, Kelly NH R Barrasso, John WY R Blunt, Roy MO R Boozman, John AR R Burr, Richard NC R Capito, Shelley WV R Cassidy, Bill LA R Coats, Daniel IN R Cochran, Thad MS R Collins, Susan ME R Corker, Bob TN R Cornyn, John TX R Cotton, Tom AR R Enzi, Michael WY R Ernst, Joni IA R Fischer, Deb NE R Flake, Jeff AZ R Gardner, Cory CO R Grassley, Chuck IA R Hatch, Orrin UT R Hoeven, John ND R Inhofe, Jim OK R Isakson, John GA R Johnson, Ron WI R Kirk, Mark IL R Lankford, James OK R McCain, John AZ R McConnell, Mitch KY R Moran, Jerry KS R Murkowski, Lisa AK R Perdue, David GA R Portman, Rob OH R Roberts, Pat KS R Rounds, Mike SD R Sasse, Benjamin NE R Scott, Tim SC R Sessions, Jeff AL R Shelby, Richard AL R Thune, John SD R Tillis, Thom NC R Toomey, Pat PA R Wicker, Roger MS
- Zelphyr 11y agoBoth of my Senators had been previously flagged as being against this bill yet they voted for it. So they lied to someone. How... expected.
- kenbellows 11y agoI mean, or they changed their minds. It does happen occasionally.
- mtgx 11y agoWe need to raise hell on all of those politicians including the White House months from now, when there will inevitably be another breach where tens of millions of people's data is hacked and their beloved CISA didn't stop it. Shame them into admitting it's not only a useless, but harmful law, and force them to repeal it.
- mikehotel 11y agoInteresting votes: Nay I Sanders, Bernie VT No Vote R Cruz, Ted TX No Vote R Graham, Lindsey SC No Vote R Paul, Rand KY No Vote R Rubio, Marco FL Above from GovTrack [1] Note, the Guardian [2] has Sen. Graham as voting yes. > Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders voted against the bill. None of the Republican presidential candidates (except Lindsey Graham, who voted in favor) were present to cast a vote, including Rand Paul, who has made privacy from surveillance a major plank of his campaign platform. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291 https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291 [2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/cisa-cybersecurity-bill-senate-vote http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/27/cisa-cybersecur...
- tptacek 11y agoThat kind of makes sense, because the bill cleared its cloture vote with overwhelming support, and if you follow the amendments from the beginning, pretty much everyone seems to have had their fingers in it. There's nothing anyone could have done to change the outcome.
- druddha 11y agoBut it's much easier to tell a reporter, "I voted against CISA" than it is to explain cloture.
- bostonpete 11y agoThen why didn't any candidate except Sanders vote against it?
- adventured 11y agoPaul for example is running for President. He has to be at the debate if he even wants to pretend to still be in the running. Could he be in both places in the same day? I don't know, I guess you'd have to find out how plausible that is in terms of debate preparation.
- nickpsecurity 11y agoEFF isn't getting it: powerful and rich people want this bill to pass for increased government surveillance, control, financial contracts, and bribes. It's probably that simple. They didn't make a mistake any more than they accidentally give the Pentagon or defence contractors ridiculous sums of money for useless stuff that just keeps people employed in their districts, their stock portfolios in the black, and their campaign funds full. This is part of systematic corruption. They just don't give a shit, they have incentives not to, and agencies promise them an exemption which they believe. (Wait, there's the mistake.) Aside from huge voter push, the only thing that could change it would be similar money and power pushing in the opposite direction. Not talk, not lawyers, not faxes: one or more groups paying for and demanding curtailing of mass surveillance with ability to disrupt contracts, bills, or the politician's careers. Right now, only the pro-surveillance people are in that position. So, they're winning and will keep winning until people get how the system really works and make it work for them.
- Umn55 11y agoGoes way beyond that... On the NSA/spying... The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7ZyJw_cHJY Brezinski at a press conference https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWTIZBCQ79g
- stevecalifornia 11y agoHere is my problem with EFF: They are raising a stink and not providing any cited evidence. In Wikipedia terms-- [citation needed]. Take any article published by them and count how many links deep you have to get to any actual information and not just general opinion. I still haven't found anything that goes through the bill and explains what the problem is citing the text of the bill. This is an actual opening sentence from some material the EFF published: "Although grassroots activism has dealt it a blow, the Senate Intelligence Committee's terrible bill, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Act(CISA) keeps shambling along like the zombie it is." It's hard for me to get behind an organization that writes like this. What I dislike about all the crazy right-wing emails I get is it's all inflated scare mongering and no actual sourcing. The EFF's publications are getting way too similar and it saddens me. Now, on the flip side, I have yet to see the authors of this bill really put out much material that relates the bill in simpler terms. For that, I am also saddened.
- throwawaymaroon 11y agoWeak. Four whole paragraphs talking about how we don't have enough information, without making any effort towards the gathering of said information. This is called equivocation and to me it indicates that you're one of those "I don't have anything to hide" types trying to raise a more reasonable objection.
- h1818902 11y agohttps://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/senate-intelligence-committee-advances-terrible-cybersecurity-bill-surveillance https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/03/senate-intelligence-co... TL;DR: More surveillance under the guise of "Cybersecurity"
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Shivetya 11y agoand this is why people should cheer when Democrats and Republicans cannot agree on how to run the government instead of buying into the line that divisiveness is bad. because when they get along we lose.