CISPA

[Jumbofile]

http://www.facebook.com/StopTheCISPA

[Marsh]

Didnt this already pass?

[cheatking]

Last post was almost a year ago…

[Anna Comnena]

It recently passed the house, since they had their whole false flag event in Boston testing the sheep's willingness to submit to martial law, and these sort of times are perfect for passing unpopular things. It's not sure if it will pass the senate, and Obama had threatened to veto the bill before. But we all know that doesn't mean jack shit (still wars, more drone strikes, Gitmo still going, etc.).

I thought it was funny, all the stuff in the paper was about Boston or here the 4/20 rally, and then there was this little tucked away article about a "pro-biz bill passes house", which was about CISPA. Pro-business, funny.

[SilentGamer]

I really want to see how this turns out. I have been reading up a lot about this and it seems like the a really bad move. It just looks like it will just annoy a lot of people.

Does this just affect people in America, or will it affect the rest of the world as well?

[Helladen]

Sign [this](http://www.cispaisback.org/) if you can. Once governments can control the web, there's no way to rally to defend our rights. It's a major step to take away rights of people in the United States and eventually other countries.

[Mal]

I say let it pass. I have absolutely nothing to hide, and I don't need a proxy or TOR just to browse the interwebz. If I start to feel uncomfortable? I'll simply pullthe ducking cord out of my router. The end. I don't need internet shopping (although it's sometimes convenient), and I know how to use a ducking library card (information resources the internet has to offer), and I absolutely do not need social media; it's a joke.

[SilentGamer]

> I say let it pass. I have absolutely nothing to hide, and I don't need a proxy or TOR just to browse the interwebz. If I start to feel uncomfortable? I'll simply pullthe ducking cord out of my router. The end. I don't need internet shopping (although it's sometimes convenient), and I know how to use a ducking library card (information resources the internet has to offer), and I absolutely do not need social media; it's a joke.

You will be annoyed when you can't go on this forum any more, talk to people long distant and play online games.

The Internet is part of our lives now and we don't want to be forced off. That's the whole point why people want this to be vetoed.

[Mal]

> You will be annoyed when you can't go on this forum any more, talk to people long distant and play online games.
>
> The Internet is part of our lives now and we don't want to be forced off. That's the whole point why people want this to be vetoed.

Annoyed when I can't go on the internet? No, you couldn't be so far from wrong. I would be free. Forced off? No, it'd be a choice. Lol. I hate using the sheep analogy, but.. geeze.

[SilentGamer]

> Annoyed when I can't go on the internet? No, you couldn't be so far from wrong. I would be free. Forced off? No, it'd be a choice. Lol. I hate using the sheep analogy, but.. geeze.

If you say "I would be free". Then why are you here? Just stop now. This act isn't stopping you. Go be free!

I think you're just being a little silly.

[cheatking]

> Annoyed when I can't go on the internet? No, you couldn't be so far from wrong. I would be free. Forced off? No, it'd be a choice. Lol. I hate using the sheep analogy, but.. geeze.

Why not free yourself rather than relying on the government then?

You're being quite selfish, allowing things like this to pass just because you don't care.

[Mal]

> Why not free yourself rather than relying on the government then?
>
> You're being quite selfish, allowing things like this to pass just because you don't care.

> Why not free yourself rather than relying on the government then?
>
> You're being quite selfish, allowing things like this to pass just because you don't care.

Anyone who has nothing to hide also does not care if this passes or not. The counter-movement where internet privacy is concerned is nothing but over-hyped alarmist liez. The pseudo-legal analysis of what that bill says has been done by the same people who started the hoax about RFID chips mandated through Obamacare; Marshy Dearest 23, 2013 has come and gone and I'm still waiting on my chip, how about you?

@ Bean - I honestly don't know. Boredom would be my first intelligent guess.

To put it more plainly there are two groups of extremists: 1) Capitalist, self-concerned bigots. 2) Over-exaggerating, band wagon conspiracists, and alarmists who think the Government is the boogy man. Neither honestly have a clue as to what the other wants or what they're truly about.

[Synergy]

> Anyone who has nothing to hide also does not care if this passes or not. The counter-movement where internet privacy is concerned is nothing but over-hyped alarmist liez. The pseudo-legal analysis of what that bill says has been done by the same people who started the hoax about RFID chips mandated through Obamacare; Marshy Dearest Dearest 23, 2013 has come and gone and I'm still waiting on my chip, how about you?
>
> @ Bean - I honestly don't know. Boredom would be my first intelligent guess.
>
> To put it more plainly there are two groups of extremists: 1) Capitalist, self-concerned bigots. 2) Over-exaggerating, band wagon conspiracists, and alarmists who think the Government is the boogy man. Neither honestly have a clue as to what the other wants or what they're truly about.

Well, as Seany is in Scotland it's unlikely he'd be in anyway affected by some Obamacare thing.

Also, isn't CISPA supposedly in contradiction to the 4th Amendment? I thought Americans were super big on their amendments..

[cheatking]

> Well, as Seany is in Scotland it's unlikely he'd be in anyway affected by some Obamacare thing.
>
> Also, isn't CISPA supposedly in contradiction to the 4th Amendment? I thought Americans were super big on their amendments..

Until I can't access sites hosted on US soil.

Or I download something and get extradited.

[SilentGamer]

> Well, as Seany is in Scotland it's unlikely he'd be in anyway affected by some Obamacare thing.
>
> Also, isn't CISPA supposedly in contradiction to the 4th Amendment? I thought Americans were super big on their amendments..

That's exactly what I thought. It seems stupid. Maybe when Boston stops being main news people will recognise it. That's probably why they introduced it then, so people won't notice it.

Pretty clever to be honest.

[Mal]

> Well, as Seany is in Scotland it's unlikely he'd be in anyway affected by some Obamacare thing.
>
> Also, isn't CISPA supposedly in contradiction to the 4th Amendment? I thought Americans were super big on their amendments..

"Right to Privacy" is the argument, and they (conspiracists and alarmists) believe federally mandated programs aimed at siphoning any potentially private and non-public domain information is a breach of that right. I'm not very big on either side of the argument; I honestly don't care what the government does with my information because my ducking fingerprints and DNA are already in a federal database, along with a record of my first long-range confirmed kill that instantly put me on a watch list; along with that, I simply don't care what they do because I do nothing wrong. I'm a law abiding citizen, and I plan to keep it that way. My life in the US is pretty good comparative to the shit I see come out of foreign countries.

> Until I can't access sites hosted on US soil.
>
> Or I download something and get extradited.

I highly doubt Scotland will ever allow the extradition of one of it's natives to a foreign country if the crime was committed on their soil.

[cheatking]

> I highly doubt Scotland will ever allow the extradition of one of it's natives to a foreign country if the crime was committed on their soil.

[Similar enough to count.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-loses-us-extradition)

[SilentGamer]

> [Similar enough to count.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-loses-us-extradition)

That's really interesting. Now with CISPA there won't even be a trail. They will just go to prison in the US.

[Mal]

> [Similar enough to count.](http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/13/piracy-student-loses-us-extradition)

Cool story. Kid shouldn't have been aiding and abetting the illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

[SilentGamer]

> Cool story. Kid shouldn't have been aiding and abetting the illegal distribution of copyrighted material.

True, but with it all being based in England should he go over to America for his sentence. With CISPA in place it seems they won't even get a fair trial, that just sounds unfair.

[Mal]

> True, but with it all being based in England should he go over to America for his sentence. With CISPA in place it seems they won't even get a fair trial, that just sounds unfair.

"In July the agency's assistant deputy director told the Guardian that ICE would now actively pursue websites similar to TVShack even if their only connection to the US was a website address ending in .com or .net.

Such suffixes are routed through Verisign, an [internet](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/internet) infrastructure company based in Virginia, which the agency believes is sufficient to seek a US prosecution." - From the related article.

Short answer? Yes, since traffic was routed through a US owned company. Long answer? Muddy water.

[Anna Comnena]

> I say let it pass. I have absolutely nothing to hide, and I don't need a proxy or TOR just to browse the interwebz. If I start to feel uncomfortable? I'll simply pullthe ducking cord out of my router. The end. I don't need internet shopping (although it's sometimes convenient), and I know how to use a ducking library card (information resources the internet has to offer), and I absolutely do not need social media; it's a joke.

I lol'd.

[Mal]

> I lol'd.

So did I at how silly the legislation and the counter-argument against it is.

[Nook]

Mistrust of the government doesn't instantly make someone a conspiracy theorist. 

I'm no expert on the subject, but I think CISPA allows your information that was disclosed to a company to be passed to the government (and potentially other companies) without requiring that you be notified. This includes everything recorded _before_ the bill was passed… even if it was disclosed under promise of security.

Yeah, the bill has potential for good, but the (vague) wording allows for unreasonable searches and that's dat shit we don't like. I fail to see how several Americans protecting something guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights is silly.

[Mal]

> Mistrust of the government doesn't instantly make someone a conspiracy theorist. 
>
> I'm no expert on the subject, but I think CISPA allows your information that was disclosed to a company to be passed to the government (and potentially other companies) without requiring that you be notified. This includes everything recorded _before_ the bill was passed… even if it was disclosed under promise of security.
>
> Yeah, the bill has potential for good, but the (vague) wording allows for unreasonable searches and that's dat shit we don't like. I fail to see how several Americans protecting something guaranteed to us by the Bill of Rights is silly.

Your information can already be legally obtained by law enforcement upon request from your ISP; most if not all ISP's in the United States have a clause in their AUP/ToS that explicitly states that they will directly cooperate with law enforcement and you waive your right to privacy in that concern. Once again, silly alarmists and conspiracists looking for new propaganda for their anti-establishment campaign.

This is taken from Wikipedia, and I don't care to further research for anyone (highlighted keywords for you):

"In an April 16th, 2012, press release, the [House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Committee_on_Intelligence) announced the approval of several amendments to CISPA, including the addition of a new provision "**to permit federal lawsuits against the government for any violation of restrictions placed on the government’s use of voluntarily shared information, including the important privacy and civil liberties protections contained in the bill,"** the inclusion of an anti-tasking provision to **"explicitly prohibit the government from conditioning its sharing of cyber threat intelligence on the sharing of private sector information with the government,"** and the prevention of the government from using the information for **"any other lawful purpose unless the government already has a significant cybersecurity or national security purpose in using the information."** Relevant provisions were also clarified to **"focus on the fact that the bill is designed to protect against unauthorized access to networks or systems, including unauthorized access aimed at stealing private or government information."** [[15]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act#cite_note-15) In addition, already collected cyberthreat data **can also be used to investigate "the imminent threat of bodily harm to an individual" or "the exploitation of a minor,"** bringing the bill into line with existing law codified by the [Patriot Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act) and the [PROTECT Our Children Act](http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1738) in which these two conditions already allow for protected entities to share data voluntarily with the United States government, law enforcement agencies, and the [National Center for Missing and Exploited Children](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Missing_and_Exploited_Children)." - Retreived from [http://en.wikipedia…._Protection_Act](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_Protection_Act) on April 23, 2013, Paragraph 2, under title "Content".