internet laws: CISPA is FAR worse than any of the other BS They have tried...

[Darren Dirt]

imo.

http://verdict.justia.com/2012/05/02/why-the-cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-cispa-is-not-the-solution-to-u-s-cyber-attack-fears

The language of CISPA casts a net so broad that it could potentially catch intellectual property piracy, encryption, streaming video, and file-sharing.  Private entities participating in CISPA can, unbeknownst to their customers, monitor their customers, gather information on them, and then hand that information over to the government

under CISPA, knowledge about copyright infringement could be considered cyber threat information.  So, if Google finds out that there is copyright-protected content on YouTube, the company might be authorized to send the information about that content over to the government as purported cyber threat information.

Under the availability prong of CISPA, any activity that might slow down a network might be considered cyber threat information.  This means that use data for services like VPN, Skype, Netflix, Bittorrent and Tor could all be considered cyber threat information simply because the use of these applications and services slows down a network. These are all legal, common uses of the Internet, and yet, under this bill, an individual using these applications and services can have her use data passed onto the government as cyber threat information.

combine that wide net of justification with this...

The third-party doctrine of privacy law states that individuals have no reasonable expectation of privacy in information that they have voluntarily disclosed to third parties.  As the Supreme Court said in United States v. Miller, ?The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit the obtaining of information revealed to a third party and conveyed by him to Government authorities, even if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used  only for a limited purpose and the confidence placed in the third party will not be betrayed.?

something seems truly amiss if the government no longer avails itself of the warrant requirement because it simply isn?t necessary.

CISPA places the goal of protecting civil liberties second to national security goals.

the drumbeat of ?National security at all costs? is getting louder and louder. it is becoming increasingly acceptable?even business as usual?in the minds of lawmakers and regulators to subordinate civil liberties to national security.

For The VaterlandHomeland!

[Mr. Analog]

Obama said he would veto it, however Obama has said a lot of things in the past...

[Darren Dirt]

Obama said he would veto it, however Obama has said a lot of things in the past...

Yeah, this guy who promises to "veto" an internet security nonsense bill ... is the same guy who signed a pretty nasty congress-free "executive order" #13603 ("National Defense Resources Preparedness").
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jimpowell/2012/04/29/obamas-plan-to-seize-control-of-our-economy-and-our-lives/print/

:sigh:

[Mr. Analog]

Isn't that the same emergency powers bill that gets signed every year? Like the US has been in a "State of Emergency" since 1950 and gives the President a bunch of extra powers (like flight and super speed)