4 ms·
They 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.
by ryanSrich 14y ago
They 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 14y agoIn what words in the law do you find refuge for mass collection of the texts of online messages?
- nickdoesdesign 14y 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 14y 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 14y agoThis seems like a generalized concern about the government's practices rather than a specific concern about CISPA.
- ryanSrich 14y 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 14y agoYou could make the same argument about any law. The point is that makes it a weaker argument, not a stronger one.