3 ms·
Actually... Why do they want to pass this bill in the first place? I mean... The things they want to do are comparable with monitoring all phone calls. Listeni
by pms 13y ago
Actually... Why do they want to pass this bill in the first place?
I mean... The things they want to do are comparable with monitoring all phone calls. Listening to all phone calls and trying to catch dangerous words in the conversations. Why nobody tried to do this with phone calls, but now they try to do this with on-line messaging and social networks?
- kaoD 13y agoBecause text analysis is very easy compared to audio analysis. Check YouTube's transcriptions. They suck.
- pms 13y agoWell. That's obvious. The question is if we need it, and if it won't be abused? I think we were doing pretty fine without monitoring phone calls, so why do we want to monitor on-line services? Because it's simpler is not a good answer.
- tptacek 13y agoWhat CISPA purports to do is not comparable with monitoring all phone calls. Where, in the text of the bill or any of its amendments, do you find support for the concern that the law would be used that way?
- ryanSrich 13y agoThey don't have to say those exact words pre se. All they have to do is keep the wording vague enough so that those actions can be justified.
- tptacek 13y agoIn what words in the law do you find refuge for mass collection of the texts of online messages?
- nickdoesdesign 13y agoThey dont need it. Look at the FBI's Carnivore Program, now obsolete. All they needed was a warrant (or, nowadays an NSL) to do so. Just because its not explicitly stated does not mean it cannot be a reality, justified by vague wording and obfuscation.
- tptacek 13y agoIf the text of the bill doesn't matter, why does the bill matter? If they can do whatever they want, why protest this bill?
- chc 13y agoThis seems like a generalized concern about the government's practices rather than a specific concern about CISPA.
- ryanSrich 13y agoWell of course it is. All CISPA is, is the next logical progression of the totalitarian[1] state. It harks back to the Patriot Act. There was an event of terror. Therefore there must be "terrorists" out there and we really need protection from them. So much so that we are willing to surrender our rights to a fair trial. CISPA is the same thing. It focuses on one instance, or issue and abstracts peoples actions away from that to make it seem like something they'll never have to deal with. Case in point, no one thinks that they'll be detained and held without trial, but that still doesn't mean the government can't do that. [1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism]
- GHFigs 13y agoYou could make the same argument about any law. The point is that makes it a weaker argument, not a stronger one.
- darrylb42 13y agoCould be this? http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/16253022748/oh-look-rep-mike-rogers-wife-stands-to-benefit-greatly-cispa-passing.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130417/16253022748/oh-loo...
- lawnchair_larry 13y agoYep, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.