4 ms·

As I recall, the 1991 version of me thought a lot of things that the 2012 version of me doesn't. I presume this is true for most humans, including Vice Presiden

As I recall, the 1991 version of me thought a lot of things that the 2012 version of me doesn't. I presume this is true for most humans, including Vice President Biden.

dmix 14y ago
What's interesting was that it was a last minute addition to an omnibus crime bill. The same thing is still happening today where amendments attacking internet freedom get tagged onto existing bills under the guise of targeting "terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized crime" aka "The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyps...
- tptacek 14y ago
  It was the official, overt policy of the Clinton administration through the 1990s. I'm curious as to which amendments you refer to that "attack Internet freedom" in the guise of catching Internet predators.
  - dmix 14y ago
    I'm from Canada, last year we had an omnibus crime bill that included an amendment for government to warrantlessly track online activity which they defended as a way to track pedophiles. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1131446--conservative-bill-c-30-will-let-police-spy-on-canadians-online http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1131... In the USA, this wasn't an amendment but would have affected far more than just predators: "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Internet_Pornographers_Act_of_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Intern... In the UK, there is the snoopers bill for monitoring online communication, choice quote [3]: > "Criminals, terrorists and pedophiles will want MPs to vote against this bill. Victims of crime, police and the public will want them to vote for it. It’s a question of whose side you’re on,” said Home Secretary Theresa May. http://rt.com/news/uk-snoopers-charter-may-276/ http://rt.com/news/uk-snoopers-charter-may-276/ There is certainly a pattern of using the "4 horsemen" to pass bills attacking internet freedom that affect all citizens not just the criminals.
chernevik 14y ago
Me too. But this wasn't some joker on a bar stool spouting opinions. This was a United States Senator, proposing law. I would hope that if I was _legislating_ I would take care to do _nothing_ until I was quite sure that my proposals didn't diminish the liberties of free people. Biden might today protest ignorance. Okay, then what the hell was he doing proposing legislation in the first place?
- tptacek 14y ago
  He was not "proposing law". He added a meaningless sense of Congress resolution in 1993 that presaged CALEA, which he cosponsored, and which passed in 1994, and which expressly exempted providers from being required to decrypt encrypted communications.
  - harold 14y ago
    It is true that sense of congress resolutions are not law, and just an 'opinion of congress'. Just for context of what Biden's opinion was at the time, here is the 'meaningless sense' that appears to have originated in his bill, S-226, from 1991. SEC. 2201. COOPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102sT9Zw9:e30624 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102sT9...:
    - tptacek 14y ago
      Again, worth noting that Biden cosponsored a bill less than a year later that (a) provided for lawful intercept of telecommunications while (b) explicitly exempting providers from a requirement to provide plaintext.
      - declan 14y ago
vertis 14y ago
We have a similar problem here too (Australia). Other Politicians from the opposing party spend time nitpicking things that were done in the distant past. It becomes a big deal when anyone does a 'backflip'. I don't have proof, but I would wager that certain politicians stick to supporting things they no longer believe in, just to avoid this kind of thing.

As I recall, the 1991 version of me thought a lot of things that the 2012 version of me doesn't. I presume this is true for most humans, including Vice President Biden.

dmix 14y ago

What's interesting was that it was a last minute addition to an omnibus crime bill. The same thing is still happening today where amendments attacking internet freedom get tagged onto existing bills under the guise of targeting "terrorists, drug dealers, pedophiles, and organized crime" aka "The Four Horsemen of the Infocalypse". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalypse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyps...

tptacek 14y ago
It was the official, overt policy of the Clinton administration through the 1990s. I'm curious as to which amendments you refer to that "attack Internet freedom" in the guise of catching Internet predators.
- dmix 14y ago
  I'm from Canada, last year we had an omnibus crime bill that included an amendment for government to warrantlessly track online activity which they defended as a way to track pedophiles. http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1131446--conservative-bill-c-30-will-let-police-spy-on-canadians-online http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1131... In the USA, this wasn't an amendment but would have affected far more than just predators: "Protecting Children from Internet Pornographers Act of 2011". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Internet_Pornographers_Act_of_2011 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protecting_Children_from_Intern... In the UK, there is the snoopers bill for monitoring online communication, choice quote [3]: > "Criminals, terrorists and pedophiles will want MPs to vote against this bill. Victims of crime, police and the public will want them to vote for it. It’s a question of whose side you’re on,” said Home Secretary Theresa May. http://rt.com/news/uk-snoopers-charter-may-276/ http://rt.com/news/uk-snoopers-charter-may-276/ There is certainly a pattern of using the "4 horsemen" to pass bills attacking internet freedom that affect all citizens not just the criminals.

chernevik 14y ago

Me too. But this wasn't some joker on a bar stool spouting opinions. This was a United States Senator, proposing law. I would hope that if I was _legislating_ I would take care to do _nothing_ until I was quite sure that my proposals didn't diminish the liberties of free people. Biden might today protest ignorance. Okay, then what the hell was he doing proposing legislation in the first place?

tptacek 14y ago
He was not "proposing law". He added a meaningless sense of Congress resolution in 1993 that presaged CALEA, which he cosponsored, and which passed in 1994, and which expressly exempted providers from being required to decrypt encrypted communications.
- harold 14y ago
  It is true that sense of congress resolutions are not law, and just an 'opinion of congress'. Just for context of what Biden's opinion was at the time, here is the 'meaningless sense' that appears to have originated in his bill, S-226, from 1991. SEC. 2201. COOPERATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS PROVIDERS WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. It is the sense of Congress that providers of electronic communications services and manufacturers of electronic communications service equipment shall ensure that communications systems permit the government to obtain the plain text contents of voice, data, and other communications when appropriately authorized by law. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102sT9Zw9:e30624 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c102:1:./temp/~c102sT9...:
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Again, worth noting that Biden cosponsored a bill less than a year later that (a) provided for lawful intercept of telecommunications while (b) explicitly exempting providers from a requirement to provide plaintext.
    - declan 14y ago

vertis 14y ago

We have a similar problem here too (Australia). Other Politicians from the opposing party spend time nitpicking things that were done in the distant past. It becomes a big deal when anyone does a 'backflip'. I don't have proof, but I would wager that certain politicians stick to supporting things they no longer believe in, just to avoid this kind of thing.