Here we go again, SOPA IS BACK!

This is totally serious. It's happening again and it's not looking good...

 
An onrush of condemnation and criticism kept the SOPA and PIPA acts from passing earlier this year, but US lawmakers have already authored another authoritarian bill that could give them free reign to creep the Web in the name of cybersecurity.

As congressmen in Washington consider how to handle the ongoing issue of cyberattacks, some legislators have lent their support to a new act that, if passed, would let the government pry into the personal correspondence of anyone of their choosing.

H.R. 3523, a piece of legislation dubbed the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (or CISPA for short), has been created under the guise of being a necessary implement in America’s war against cyberattacks. But the vague verbiage contained within the pages of the paper could allow Congress to circumvent existing exemptions to online privacy laws and essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties. Critics have already come after CISPA for the capabilities that it will give to seemingly any federal entity that claims it is threatened by online interactions, but unlike the Stop Online Privacy Act and the Protect IP Acts that were discarded on the Capitol Building floor after incredibly successful online campaigns to crush them, widespread recognition of what the latest would-be law will do has yet to surface to the same degree.

Kendall Burman of the Center for Democracy and Technology tells RT that Congress is currently considering a number of cybersecurity bills that could eventually be voted into law, but for the group that largely advocates an open Internet, she warns that provisions within CISPA are reason to worry over what the realities could be if it ends up on the desk of President Barack Obama. So far CISPA has been introduced, referred and reported by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and expects to go before a vote in the first half of Congress within the coming weeks.

“We have a number of concerns with something like this bill that creates sort of a vast hole in the privacy law to allow government to receive these kinds of information,” explains Burman, who acknowledges that the bill, as written, allows the US government to involve itself into any online correspondence, current exemptions notwithstanding, if it believes there is reason to suspect cyber crime. As with other authoritarian attempts at censorship that have come through Congress in recent times, of course, the wording within the CISPA allows for the government to interpret the law in such a number of degrees that any online communication or interaction could be suspect and thus unknowingly monitored.

In a press release penned last month by the CDT, the group warned then that CISPA allows Internet Service Providers to “funnel private communications and related information back to the government without adequate privacy protections and controls.

The bill does not specify which agencies ISPs could disclose customer data to, but the structure and incentives in the bill raise a very real possibility that the National Security Agency or the DOD’s Cybercommand would be the primary recipient,” reads the warning.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, another online advocacy group, has also sharply condemned CISPA for what it means for the future of the Internet. “It effectively creates a ‘cybersecurity'’ exemption to all existing laws,” explains the EFF, who add in a statement of their own that “There are almost no restrictions on what can be collected and how it can be used, provided a company can claim it was motivated by ‘cybersecurity purposes.’”

What does that mean? Both the EFF and CDT say an awfully lot. Some of the biggest corporations in the country, including service providers such as Google, Facebook, Twitter or AT&T, could copy confidential information and send them off to the Pentagon if pressured, as long as the government believes they have reason to suspect wrongdoing. In a summation of their own, the Congressional Research Service, a nonpartisan arm of the Library of Congress, explains that “efforts to degrade, disrupt or destroy” either “a system or network of a government or private entity” is reason enough for Washington to reach in and read any online communiqué of their choice.

The authors of CISPA say the bill has been made “To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities,” but not before noting that the legislation could be used “and for other purposes,” as well — which, of course, are not defined.

“Cyber security, when done right and done narrowly, could benefit everyone,” Burman tells RT. “But it needs to be done in an incremental way with an arrow approach, and the heavy hand that lawmakers are taking with these current bills . . . it brings real serious concerns.”

So far CISPA has garnered support from over 100 representatives in the House who are favoring this cybersecurity legislation without taking into considerations what it could do to the everyday user of the Internet. And while the backlash created by opponents of SOPA and PIPA has not materialized to the same degree yet, Burman warns Congress that it could be only a matter of time before concerned Americans step up to have their say.

“One of the lessons we learned in the reaction to SOPA and PIPA is that when Congress tries to legislate on things that are going to affect Internet users’ experience, the Internet users are going to pay attention,” says Burman. H.R. 3523, she cautions, “Definitely could affect in a very serious way the internet experience.” Luckily, adds Burman, “People are starting to notice.” Given the speed that the latest censorship bill could sneak through Congress, however, anyone concerned over the future of the Internet should be on the lookout for CISPA as it continues to be considered on Capitol Hill.

Source: http://rt.com/usa/news/cispa-bill-sopa-internet-175/

Another SOPA-like bill and internet-moderating campaign happening all over again. The new bill is called CISPA, and it's already on the move to put the US government's hand in regulating the internet, making it just as dangerous as SOPA and PIPA was. Well, I'm opposing this bill (and also making crappy art about it). I mean, what's up with all these recent "internet shutdown" bills? It could totally affect RMRK! Hopefully this will die out as quickly as SOPA did.

By the way, I found a petition page for the bill: http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa/?tta



"Grammar in today's post is brought to you by the letter Z for your sanity."

The US government seems to have a tendency for taking it up the arse by the entertainment industry.

Is ACTA not enough?
Seriously, the fuck is wrong with the US Government?

i totally made a photo about it

That's not a photo.

Actually I'm surprised.

That looks strangely effective.

updates: EFF is also talking about this: https://wfc2.wiredforchange.com/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=8444

and also you are allowed to use that photo anywhere...

It really bothers me because of the effects those fuckawful people have on the rest of the world. You can't really isolate internet censorship, what they're doing is essentially ruining it for everyone worldwide. We had a protest in our capital regarding SOPA, we'll probably have one for this as well

God, I think everyone I know on the internets will get pissed. 

At least when China did it, they reduced the censorship to only their country.


Right now I'm remembering a British person being extradited to the US for a crime that is not illegal in his own country, but somehow being extradited anyway.


I have absolutely no faith in the US Government what-so-ever to do things properly, and I know a few Americans who will agree with me.

Old people, right? "How does internet work?"

"Grammar in today's post is brought to you by the letter Z for your sanity."

I was about to comment on the good grammar. Then I saw this

At least when China did it, they reduced the censorship to only their country.


Right now I'm remembering a British person being extradited to the US for a crime that is not illegal in his own country, but somehow being extradited anyway.


I have absolutely no faith in the US Government what-so-ever to do things properly, and I know a few Americans who will agree with me.

I agree with you.  The big problem, though, is that we elect these people who are fucking us over into out government in all branches and then we don't make use of our right to impeach.  In most of these bills that are being drafted, we are getting some of our rights taken away.  That in itself is unlawful and unconstitutional and nobody does a thing except stand outside of places of business and getting arrested, putting more money in their pockets by paying those fines.  It's ridiculous.

Remember a time when Democracy meant that the people had a voice?

It took a fucking worldwide petition for them to drop SOPA.

Remember a time when Democracy meant that the people had a voice?

It took a fucking worldwide petition for them to drop SOPA.

I can't say I remember a time.  I'm not nearly old enough and neither are any WW1 vets for that matter lol.

Point Taken

I really would like to see people finally say "look...if you guys pass this, every single one of you are getting impeached so we can replace you with someone who will uphold the constitution."

I seriously hope this bill DOESN'T get passed, because it would mean less of our constitutional Freedom of Speech.

I'm on the same page as everyone here in that people will get pissed.

Case and point: F*CK CISPA!!!

I know that people were threatening to revolt on the US Government if they passed SOPA.

I wonder how many of them were sincere about it?

Practically everyone on the board right now.

Definity getting involved in this petition. I like my contitutinal rights, thank you very much, and Cispa can just get stopped.

I know that people were threatening to revolt on the US Government if they passed SOPA.

I wonder how many of them were sincere about it?

All I'll be doing is trying to spread the word about our rights to impeach.  I'm not gonna lie, I probably wont do much in the way of protesting.  I'll probably just sign a petition because personally, there are a lot of things I disagree with but here is why I would much rather do research to aid others in their protests than actively participate:

#1: I am open about everything I do and fully believe that if you don't want people to know what you are doing, you probably shouldn't be doing it (obviously this doesn't apply to future surprises)

#2: I've got a daughter to take care of and getting locked up for being at a protest or crazy-injured like a lot of those protesters is counter-productive to said taking care of daughter.  As of now, she is my top priority.

#3: I'm lazy and even if #1 and #2 didn't apply, it would take a friend to drive over, pick me up and drive me back home to do any sort of protesting cuz I'll be damned if I gotta ride my bike anywhere that isn't going to pay me money for my time.

Regardless, these bills are going too far out of line in some contexts...

...but people need to pick one side and stick with it.  See, on one side, we got people saying "oh dear god if you pirate, you are a total douche."   On the other hand, we've got the same people "oh my god we demand privacy" blah blah blah but this privacy act is aimed at putting a stop to piracy.  Again, yes, this bill is far out of line in most contexts (i'll change my "some" to "most") but being downright against the thing in its entirety is another counter-productive situation.  (EDIT: I reread this and thought "wtf did I just say?"  I meant to say "being against piracy but being downright against this in its entirety is counter-productive to the cause you support."  Reading below will clarify why I think so.  Time to start brainstorming ideas to make the bill more suitable without allowing for abuse of it, in other words.)

The big problem that I see other than government officials who are OBVIOUSLY doing this for money in some form is that people who protest these things have no counter-offer.  They can't offer an alternative solution.  With people from all over the world opposing this stuff, how is it that there is not one single solution being given to these law makers that would allow for freedom on the internet while also being tough on piracy? 

To protest something and say "NO! I DON'T WANT IT!" is great and it is important but it is also important to come up with your own solution to offer otherwise you will only prolong the inevitable.

All of this is why I will not protest.  The only solution I have to offer is to impeach the career politicians and vote in someone who can potentially take care of our country and do it because they care, not because of the paycheck. (key word is "potentially", being that nobody can tell a person's true color until they are actually in office)

Words from the wise, Steven. I respect that.

And of course it is mostly my take on it and so it is mostly based on my opinion.  I in no way support nor am I against piracy but some of the minor nuances of this bill is what attracts my attention. 

Whether it was biased or not, that almost speech-like reply carries a LOT of truth behind it. And as for the nuances, some of them aren't all that minor in the sense of [yet again] the loss of some consitutional Freedom of Speech, but also in the loss of some constitutional Freedom of Expression.

There doesn't need to be a solution at all.

The people in charge of this shit need to get their heads out of their arse.

Why do people pirate?
Try before Buy.

It doesn't get any simpler than that, if I like it I'll buy it.


They complain that they are losing money because of piracy... No they're fucking not, if anything they are getting MORE money.

How many musicians would you know about if it weren't for piracy?
I'll bet fuck all. I'll guarantee that the music industry is doing just fine thanks to all the concerts they have.

How many films would you have bought from the store if you didn't think it was good?
Well hey, that's another thing that piracy does. Gives you an incentive to think "Hey this was pretty good, I think I'll support the creators by buying it from the store".

How many awesome games would you have played otherwise?
I can tell you that I would've NEVER discovered Tales of Symphonia if I didn't pirate that game. It is rare as fucking hell in my country, and now I'm a full supporter and payer of the franchise.


This fucking bill has NOTHING to do with piracy, and the government fucking knows it. It's just a way for them to censor the internet against anything that they deem is a threat to THEIR popularity.
You seen that list for the blacklist on SOPA, I guarantee that a lot of them weren't doing anything with piracy.


And last but certainly not fucking least. The very idea that this bill will stop child porn is just plain fucking stupid. I have seen the worst kind of shit on the interest (amputated shit, beheadings, skull fucking, lighting people on fire). NEVER, not even once, have I seen someone fucking a kid.

Whoever came up with that bullshit idea that Child Porn is rampant on the internet obviously hasn't been on the fucking thing.
And I don't know about you, but even if it was running rampant, I would legalize that shit. It's much better to have a pedophile masturbating in his basement over pictures on the internet over doing it the old fashioned way.






So with all that in mind. Why do we need any type of bill that censors the internet?
To censor freedom of speech. It has no reason to stop piracy, it has no real reason to stop Child Porn, it has no real fucking reason to give you an ass fucking when you want to listen to some music, and best of all, it has no reason to fucking exist besides anyone's interest who did not create the fucking thing.

You seem pissed the fuck off, but you targeted some very acute problems with this bill. My question is, how are they gonna try to justify it after that point, like they tried to do with SOPA and PIPA? I'm betting they might do something like that and try to pull wool over the eyes.

And I don't know about you, but even if it was running rampant, I would legalize that shit. It's much better to have a pedophile masturbating in his basement over pictures on the internet over doing it the old fashioned way.

You are aware that child pornography is created by sexually abusing children? And that if the market for it was legal more people would be incentivized to create it? While I understand your point, I don't believe it is possible to make an easy distinction between the act of child sexual abuse and the act of watching children be sexually abused. Unless the videos are only animated, the latter can't exist without the former. However, your desire to legalize it was wider than animation.

This fucking bill has NOTHING to do with piracy, and the government fucking knows it.

That's most certainly true; the act is stated to be directed toward cybersecurity and is not concerned with piracy or child porn at all, so the rant on anti-piracy was off-topic. As far as I can tell, this bill does not really resemble SOPA, though I can certainly understand how the title of the topic misled you. I also disagree with your argument, but seeing that it would be off-topic, I won't say anything more than that.

I have no actual desire to legalize it. I just added that to improvise my point

I'm betting they might do something like that and try to pull wool over the eyes.

What?

You seem pissed the fuck off

LOL

And I don't know about you, but even if it was running rampant, I would legalize that shit. It's much better to have a pedophile masturbating in his basement over pictures on the internet over doing it the old fashioned way.

You are aware that child pornography is created by sexually abusing children? And that if the market for it was legal more people would be incentivized to create it? While I understand your point, I don't believe it is possible to make an easy distinction between the act of child sexual abuse and the act of watching children be sexually abused. Unless the videos are only animated, the latter can't exist without the former. However, your desire to legalize it was wider than animation.

This fucking bill has NOTHING to do with piracy, and the government fucking knows it.

That's most certainly true; the act is stated to be directed toward cybersecurity and is not concerned with piracy or child porn at all, so the rant on anti-piracy was off-topic. As far as I can tell, this bill does not really resemble SOPA, though I can certainly understand how the title of the topic misled you. I also disagree with your argument, but seeing that it would be off-topic, I won't say anything more than that.

you don't understand how this bill resemble SOPA and CISPA because both of the bill cause internet censorship.

Actually, we do, we just don't like it.

Wasn't that the point of this thread?

i don't know why they will have to do this bill because they already have the power to take down some website like megaupload. it was shutdown by the gov't without sopa/pipa... but why CISPA?

To shut down sites that belittle the current ruling house, and sites that they deem "threatening" to society, you know the usual.

you don't understand how this bill resemble SOPA and CISPA because both of the bill cause internet censorship.

> One of them causes Internet censorship.
> The other one causes Internet censorship.
> They must be the same thing.

i don't know why they will have to do this bill because they already have the power to take down some website like megaupload. it was shutdown by the gov't without sopa/pipa... but why CISPA?

InfiniteKnowledge already explained why bills like these are being made.

Though I think the whole rant could've been avoided.

you don't understand how this bill resemble SOPA and CISPA because both of the bill cause internet censorship.

How does this bill cause internet censorship?

After reading the bill, I don't honestly see the threat. From my brief scan, it seems to allow for sharing of information between entities for cybersecurity purposes. Cybersecurity purpose is tightly enough defined that I don't think it can be used as a screen to give the federal government access to just any information a company might possess. In fact, I don't see anywhere that permits the federal government or any other entity to demand information from any other entity. It seems purely permissive, meaning that it permits and encourages but does not require any company to share information. Moreover, information can only be shared where the information is relevant to protecting the network or system and the purpose for sharing it is to disclose cyber threats.

Your article claims that the bill permits Congress to "essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties." I don't see anything in the bill that suggests that at all. I also think the references to intellectual property are limited to that hosted on the network or system itself, meaning that it only applies to theft of intellectual property by breaking into the network or system - it would not extend to piracy in the typical sense since that would be intellectual property hosted on a different network or system, and I do not think the language in this bill extends so far. The reactions in these articles seem a little paranoid to me.

If anything, this bill seems like it will help protect internet privacy since it enables companies that you permit to collect your information to build more secure networks, thus protecting the information they host from being leaked or extracted.

you don't understand how this bill resemble SOPA and CISPA because both of the bill cause internet censorship.

How does this bill cause internet censorship?

After reading the bill, I don't honestly see the threat. From my brief scan, it seems to allow for sharing of information between entities for cybersecurity purposes. Cybersecurity purpose is tightly enough defined that I don't think it can be used as a screen to give the federal government access to just any information a company might possess. In fact, I don't see anywhere that permits the federal government or any other entity to demand information from any other entity. It seems purely permissive, meaning that it permits and encourages but does not require any company to share information. Moreover, information can only be shared where the information is relevant to protecting the network or system and the purpose for sharing it is to disclose cyber threats.

Your article claims that the bill permits Congress to "essentially monitor, censor and stop any online communication that it considers disruptive to the government or private parties." I don't see anything in the bill that suggests that at all. I also think the references to intellectual property are limited to that hosted on the network or system itself, meaning that it only applies to theft of intellectual property by breaking into the network or system - it would not extend to piracy in the typical sense since that would be intellectual property hosted on a different network or system, and I do not think the language in this bill extends so far. The reactions in these articles seem a little paranoid to me.

If anything, this bill seems like it will help protect internet privacy since it enables companies that you permit to collect your information to build more secure networks, thus protecting the information they host from being leaked or extracted.

well the bill can effect your privacy. and also how many times does the gov't been making bill about the internet than important stuff to benefits people. 

I don't think jomarcenter reads our posts.

I don't think jomarcenter reads our posts.

i totally read the post.

Then why did you completely ignore the message this Seamus fellow was giving you?

There doesn't need to be a solution at all.

The people in charge of this shit need to get their heads out of their arse.

Why do people pirate?
Try before Buy.

It doesn't get any simpler than that, if I like it I'll buy it.


They complain that they are losing money because of piracy... No they're fucking not, if anything they are getting MORE money.

How many musicians would you know about if it weren't for piracy?
I'll bet fuck all. I'll guarantee that the music industry is doing just fine thanks to all the concerts they have.

How many films would you have bought from the store if you didn't think it was good?
Well hey, that's another thing that piracy does. Gives you an incentive to think "Hey this was pretty good, I think I'll support the creators by buying it from the store".

How many awesome games would you have played otherwise?
I can tell you that I would've NEVER discovered Tales of Symphonia if I didn't pirate that game. It is rare as fucking hell in my country, and now I'm a full supporter and payer of the franchise.


This fucking bill has NOTHING to do with piracy, and the government fucking knows it. It's just a way for them to censor the internet against anything that they deem is a threat to THEIR popularity.
You seen that list for the blacklist on SOPA, I guarantee that a lot of them weren't doing anything with piracy.


And last but certainly not fucking least. The very idea that this bill will stop child porn is just plain fucking stupid. I have seen the worst kind of shit on the interest (amputated shit, beheadings, skull fucking, lighting people on fire). NEVER, not even once, have I seen someone fucking a kid.

Whoever came up with that bullshit idea that Child Porn is rampant on the internet obviously hasn't been on the fucking thing.
And I don't know about you, but even if it was running rampant, I would legalize that shit. It's much better to have a pedophile masturbating in his basement over pictures on the internet over doing it the old fashioned way.






So with all that in mind. Why do we need any type of bill that censors the internet?
To censor freedom of speech. It has no reason to stop piracy, it has no real reason to stop Child Porn, it has no real fucking reason to give you an ass fucking when you want to listen to some music, and best of all, it has no reason to fucking exist besides anyone's interest who did not create the fucking thing.

I'm not going to pretend it's something it's not because I'm not big on conspiracy bullshit, but it IS a bill to prevent piracy because the film industry is paying these people to make the bill happen.  They aren't trying to censor the internet but it will inevitably happen if it goes through.  Don't get your facts confused.  All of this stems from piracy of entertainment.  They just happen to be targeting other things as well as the piracy issue and THAT is why it needs to be stopped.  Now let's get back to reality here and make sure we are all understanding what we know and not what we think we know, okay? 

As I stated, I am neither for nor against piracy and I see it as you pointed out "Try it before you buy it" but at the same time, I can't honestly tell you anyone that actually buys their software, movies or music after they tried it because they already have it, they already seen it, they already played it or it's too expensive to buy on a measly income so honestly, our argument of "Try it before you buy it" does not hold much weight these days, especially with services like netflix, trial software and youtube (vevo).  I mean, call me devil's advocate here, but I can see all sides of this and there really DOES need to be a solution agreed on by the entire population of our planet because frankly, a bill like SOPA and CISPA is inevitable as long as we don't put our foot down and say "this is how we are willing to bend if you are willing to bend yourself...otherwise, we want you out of the office."  We need to make sure the bill is stated in plain words what it is intended for, what it is will do and what it will not do and make sure that all can agree.

Then why did you completely ignore the message this Seamus fellow was giving you?

there some flaws and defects to the bill.
first of all it bypass some privacy laws and second of it companies will/may disclose user information to the gov't without user permission...

Then why did you completely ignore the message this Seamus fellow was giving you?

there some flaws and defects to the bill.
first of all it bypass some privacy laws and second of it companies will/may disclose user information to the gov't without user permission...

Reality check: as long as IPs are stored anywhere, most places already will/may disclose user information to the government.  It is all a part of how things work.  If the government has a search warrant to check you out because you could be breaking some law, all they have to do is flash the warrant and say "gimme all information you collect on this person." 

Spoiler for Long Ass Quote:

There doesn't need to be a solution at all.

The people in charge of this shit need to get their heads out of their arse.

Why do people pirate?
Try before Buy.

It doesn't get any simpler than that, if I like it I'll buy it.


They complain that they are losing money because of piracy... No they're fucking not, if anything they are getting MORE money.

How many musicians would you know about if it weren't for piracy?
I'll bet fuck all. I'll guarantee that the music industry is doing just fine thanks to all the concerts they have.

How many films would you have bought from the store if you didn't think it was good?
Well hey, that's another thing that piracy does. Gives you an incentive to think "Hey this was pretty good, I think I'll support the creators by buying it from the store".

How many awesome games would you have played otherwise?
I can tell you that I would've NEVER discovered Tales of Symphonia if I didn't pirate that game. It is rare as fucking hell in my country, and now I'm a full supporter and payer of the franchise.


This fucking bill has NOTHING to do with piracy, and the government fucking knows it. It's just a way for them to censor the internet against anything that they deem is a threat to THEIR popularity.
You seen that list for the blacklist on SOPA, I guarantee that a lot of them weren't doing anything with piracy.


And last but certainly not fucking least. The very idea that this bill will stop child porn is just plain fucking stupid. I have seen the worst kind of shit on the interest (amputated shit, beheadings, skull fucking, lighting people on fire). NEVER, not even once, have I seen someone fucking a kid.

Whoever came up with that bullshit idea that Child Porn is rampant on the internet obviously hasn't been on the fucking thing.
And I don't know about you, but even if it was running rampant, I would legalize that shit. It's much better to have a pedophile masturbating in his basement over pictures on the internet over doing it the old fashioned way.






So with all that in mind. Why do we need any type of bill that censors the internet?
To censor freedom of speech. It has no reason to stop piracy, it has no real reason to stop Child Porn, it has no real fucking reason to give you an ass fucking when you want to listen to some music, and best of all, it has no reason to fucking exist besides anyone's interest who did not create the fucking thing.

Spoiler for Other Long Ass Quote:

I'm not going to pretend it's something it's not because I'm not big on conspiracy bullshit, but it IS a bill to prevent piracy because the film industry is paying these people to make the bill happen.  They aren't trying to censor the internet but it will inevitably happen if it goes through.  Don't get your facts confused.  All of this stems from piracy of entertainment.  They just happen to be targeting other things as well as the piracy issue and THAT is why it needs to be stopped.  Now let's get back to reality here and make sure we are all understanding what we know and not what we think we know, okay? 

As I stated, I am neither for nor against piracy and I see it as you pointed out "Try it before you buy it" but at the same time, I can't honestly tell you anyone that actually buys their software, movies or music after they tried it because they already have it, they already seen it, they already played it or it's too expensive to buy on a measly income so honestly, our argument of "Try it before you buy it" does not hold much weight these days, especially with services like netflix, trial software and youtube (vevo).  I mean, call me devil's advocate here, but I can see all sides of this and there really DOES need to be a solution agreed on by the entire population of our planet because frankly, a bill like SOPA and CISPA is inevitable as long as we don't put our foot down and say "this is how we are willing to bend if you are willing to bend yourself...otherwise, we want you out of the office."  We need to make sure the bill is stated in plain words what it is intended for, what it is will do and what it will not do and make sure that all can agree.

Do you believe that they will willingly step out of office just because the population said so.
Likely they have another bill that was made in secret to prevent that from happening.

But if you think that would work, go for it.


Also I don't know whether or not you're disagreeing with InfiniteKnowledge

Spoiler for Long Ass Quote:

There doesn't need to be a solution at all.

The people in charge of this shit need to get their heads out of their arse.

Why do people pirate?
Try before Buy.

It doesn't get any simpler than that, if I like it I'll buy it.


They complain that they are losing money because of piracy... No they're fucking not, if anything they are getting MORE money.

How many musicians would you know about if it weren't for piracy?
I'll bet fuck all. I'll guarantee that the music industry is doing just fine thanks to all the concerts they have.

How many films would you have bought from the store if you didn't think it was good?
Well hey, that's another thing that piracy does. Gives you an incentive to think "Hey this was pretty good, I think I'll support the creators by buying it from the store".

How many awesome games would you have played otherwise?
I can tell you that I would've NEVER discovered Tales of Symphonia if I didn't pirate that game. It is rare as fucking hell in my country, and now I'm a full supporter and payer of the franchise.


This fucking bill has NOTHING to do with piracy, and the government fucking knows it. It's just a way for them to censor the internet against anything that they deem is a threat to THEIR popularity.
You seen that list for the blacklist on SOPA, I guarantee that a lot of them weren't doing anything with piracy.


And last but certainly not fucking least. The very idea that this bill will stop child porn is just plain fucking stupid. I have seen the worst kind of shit on the interest (amputated shit, beheadings, skull fucking, lighting people on fire). NEVER, not even once, have I seen someone fucking a kid.

Whoever came up with that bullshit idea that Child Porn is rampant on the internet obviously hasn't been on the fucking thing.
And I don't know about you, but even if it was running rampant, I would legalize that shit. It's much better to have a pedophile masturbating in his basement over pictures on the internet over doing it the old fashioned way.






So with all that in mind. Why do we need any type of bill that censors the internet?
To censor freedom of speech. It has no reason to stop piracy, it has no real reason to stop Child Porn, it has no real fucking reason to give you an ass fucking when you want to listen to some music, and best of all, it has no reason to fucking exist besides anyone's interest who did not create the fucking thing.

Spoiler for Other Long Ass Quote:

I'm not going to pretend it's something it's not because I'm not big on conspiracy bullshit, but it IS a bill to prevent piracy because the film industry is paying these people to make the bill happen.  They aren't trying to censor the internet but it will inevitably happen if it goes through.  Don't get your facts confused.  All of this stems from piracy of entertainment.  They just happen to be targeting other things as well as the piracy issue and THAT is why it needs to be stopped.  Now let's get back to reality here and make sure we are all understanding what we know and not what we think we know, okay? 

As I stated, I am neither for nor against piracy and I see it as you pointed out "Try it before you buy it" but at the same time, I can't honestly tell you anyone that actually buys their software, movies or music after they tried it because they already have it, they already seen it, they already played it or it's too expensive to buy on a measly income so honestly, our argument of "Try it before you buy it" does not hold much weight these days, especially with services like netflix, trial software and youtube (vevo).  I mean, call me devil's advocate here, but I can see all sides of this and there really DOES need to be a solution agreed on by the entire population of our planet because frankly, a bill like SOPA and CISPA is inevitable as long as we don't put our foot down and say "this is how we are willing to bend if you are willing to bend yourself...otherwise, we want you out of the office."  We need to make sure the bill is stated in plain words what it is intended for, what it is will do and what it will not do and make sure that all can agree.

Do you believe that they will willingly step out of office just because the population said so.
Likely they have another bill that was made in secret to prevent that from happening.

But if you think that would work, go for it.


Also I don't know whether or not you're disagreeing with InfiniteKnowledge

Um, kinda confused here, too.

Do you believe that they will willingly step out of office just because the population said so.

Uh, democracy?

I think that it has been a long while since any country had a true democracy.

Assholes who hold power always find a way to keep it.



Also off-topic... 8/10 times I see your avatar. I'm close to doing that same pose

Assholes who hold power always find a way to keep it.

True.

True.

Spoiler for Long Ass Quote:

There doesn't need to be a solution at all.

The people in charge of this shit need to get their heads out of their arse.

Why do people pirate?
Try before Buy.

It doesn't get any simpler than that, if I like it I'll buy it.


They complain that they are losing money because of piracy... No they're fucking not, if anything they are getting MORE money.

How many musicians would you know about if it weren't for piracy?
I'll bet fuck all. I'll guarantee that the music industry is doing just fine thanks to all the concerts they have.

How many films would you have bought from the store if you didn't think it was good?
Well hey, that's another thing that piracy does. Gives you an incentive to think "Hey this was pretty good, I think I'll support the creators by buying it from the store".

How many awesome games would you have played otherwise?
I can tell you that I would've NEVER discovered Tales of Symphonia if I didn't pirate that game. It is rare as fucking hell in my country, and now I'm a full supporter and payer of the franchise.


This fucking bill has NOTHING to do with piracy, and the government fucking knows it. It's just a way for them to censor the internet against anything that they deem is a threat to THEIR popularity.
You seen that list for the blacklist on SOPA, I guarantee that a lot of them weren't doing anything with piracy.


And last but certainly not fucking least. The very idea that this bill will stop child porn is just plain fucking stupid. I have seen the worst kind of shit on the interest (amputated shit, beheadings, skull fucking, lighting people on fire). NEVER, not even once, have I seen someone fucking a kid.

Whoever came up with that bullshit idea that Child Porn is rampant on the internet obviously hasn't been on the fucking thing.
And I don't know about you, but even if it was running rampant, I would legalize that shit. It's much better to have a pedophile masturbating in his basement over pictures on the internet over doing it the old fashioned way.






So with all that in mind. Why do we need any type of bill that censors the internet?
To censor freedom of speech. It has no reason to stop piracy, it has no real reason to stop Child Porn, it has no real fucking reason to give you an ass fucking when you want to listen to some music, and best of all, it has no reason to fucking exist besides anyone's interest who did not create the fucking thing.

Spoiler for Other Long Ass Quote:

I'm not going to pretend it's something it's not because I'm not big on conspiracy bullshit, but it IS a bill to prevent piracy because the film industry is paying these people to make the bill happen.  They aren't trying to censor the internet but it will inevitably happen if it goes through.  Don't get your facts confused.  All of this stems from piracy of entertainment.  They just happen to be targeting other things as well as the piracy issue and THAT is why it needs to be stopped.  Now let's get back to reality here and make sure we are all understanding what we know and not what we think we know, okay? 

As I stated, I am neither for nor against piracy and I see it as you pointed out "Try it before you buy it" but at the same time, I can't honestly tell you anyone that actually buys their software, movies or music after they tried it because they already have it, they already seen it, they already played it or it's too expensive to buy on a measly income so honestly, our argument of "Try it before you buy it" does not hold much weight these days, especially with services like netflix, trial software and youtube (vevo).  I mean, call me devil's advocate here, but I can see all sides of this and there really DOES need to be a solution agreed on by the entire population of our planet because frankly, a bill like SOPA and CISPA is inevitable as long as we don't put our foot down and say "this is how we are willing to bend if you are willing to bend yourself...otherwise, we want you out of the office."  We need to make sure the bill is stated in plain words what it is intended for, what it is will do and what it will not do and make sure that all can agree.

Do you believe that they will willingly step out of office just because the population said so.
Likely they have another bill that was made in secret to prevent that from happening.

But if you think that would work, go for it.


Also I don't know whether or not you're disagreeing with InfiniteKnowledge

That is why I have previously mentioned impeachment.  It is not a matter of them willingly stepping out of office.  It is a part of our rights as citizens.

And I'm for the most part disagreeing with the assessment that it has nothing to do with piracy and that is all about censorship.  I am in agreement that censorship is a bad thing that will come of this bill but I do not agree with the notion that the entire thing is written to do just that.

That's why I mentioned the potential of a secret bill being passed to stop that;
And asked if you thought they'd willingly step out of office if they really didn't have to.

She brings up a good point though. I'm sure the music industry is doing just fine.
The other industries on the other hand, I am not so sure about.

It doesn't necessarily need to have a policy of censorship to actually do that.
If this bill is supposed to be similar to SOPA/PIPA (which I am doubting at this point), it will probably have a blacklist for sites to block.
I think chances are pretty good that some sites will 'accidentally' get shut down under the assumption of supporting piracy, some sites that were perhaps a little anti-government.

Speaking of websites that got shut down...

From what I understand, the owners of Megaupload were drawing attention to themselves by sharing links from their own website for downloads of shows and other things that were being illegally hosted on megaupload.  While the website itself had a terms of use that prohibited the uploading of files that were pirated, the owners themselves seemed to knowingly allow some of these uploads to remain which is what ended up being their ultimate downfall. 

I'm sure many industries are doing just fine or else independant record labels and whatnot would not be popping up everywhere...in fact, it seems every rapper is making their own independant record label (As an example) and they all seem to be doing very well.  The problem lies in the fact that every body wants a bigger piece of the pie so they want to ban piracy outright and, you know, I guess I can't blame them for wanting more.  I'm sure if I was in the position they are in, I would too...but I'm not.  Again, I neither support nor am against piracy (if asked, I would willingly admit to some of my past "extended trial" downloads at the most that I actually bought in the end, but nothing more due to the internet being a great place to incriminate yourself for all to see), but it is still against the law and it is inevitable that a bill aimed at piracy will come into play at some point and if we don't put our foot down and say what is acceptable and what is unacceptable contents to be placed within said law and demand that that be it or else we WILL take action, we are going to constantly be given shitty bills that will continue to try to strip away freedom, either intentionally or unintentionally, and I'm just going to give them the benefit of the doubt that A: half of them don't know how to properly use a fax machine much less the internet and B: they don't know much at all about things that go on on the internet and get fed bullshit by third parties and so both of those issues together lead to them making poor decisions about how to go about correcting any internet piracy issue.

Megaupload were scumbags that were profiting off of their filesharing, knowingly hosting backups for and encouraging the storage and distribution of copyrighted content.

They knew what they were doing, and they were raking in ad money -and- subscription money.  They claimed to be a file-locker, but deleted unpopular files after a while, and focused on pumping ads and download faster into their business scheme.

They were criminal.

Also, I have to agree with Modern on this one, it doesn't even talk about filesharing at all, it's all cybersecurity, and deals with file-theft only in the sense that a system could be protected against hack and forced-download of their files.

Right now I'm remembering a British person being extradited to the US for a crime that is not illegal in his own country, but somehow being extradited anyway.

Not to mention someone from New Zealand being denied access to a lawyer.

Calling this SOPA is a mistake. It isn't the same thing.

Nope. It's much worse.

Explain your theory Revtattertot.

Because sops was about shutting down websites that host pirated material. This is about looking into individuals' private information. They're both bad, but they're not the same.

Nope. It's much worse.

Explain your theory.

I've gotta agree that you need to explain your theory here.  I've heard people say that both bills are just as bad as the other but never "It's much worse."   

Because sops was about shutting down websites that host pirated material. This is about looking into individuals' private information. They're both bad, but they're not the same.

But I have a question for you.  I'm not sure if you are explaining why Revtattertot is right or if you are just throwing out there why they are not the same but if you are agreeing with Revtattertot, tell me...is it much worse to have your information available to the government or them censoring the internet by blocking websites or shutting them down, limiting the interenet's usefulness as an educational tool, a business platform and a way to speak out freely?

Neither. I'm explaining why they aren't the same.

Steve, you kinda hit the points already. If I remember correctly [don't quote me exactly here, I'm not 100% on some of this], SOPA required evidence of piracy or infringement in order to shut a site down. With CISPA, all they had to do was claim it, and its down.

If I'm right or wrong, because I kinda need to have a bit more clarity since it has been a while since I read the SOPA bill, tell me.

I'm no expert so I'm not gonna speak very much on it, but if the government wanted evidence, they could just fabricate it and people would believe it.  I don't think evidence was ever a strong concern for them.

updates:
a new petition was launched and this is the petition against facebook and microsoft.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa_corporate_global/?cl=1739067674&v=13731

updates:
a new petition was launched and this is the petition against facebook and microsoft.
http://www.avaaz.org/en/stop_cispa_corporate_global/?cl=1739067674&v=13731

Seriously, a online petition isn't going to really do anything.
If you really want to stop the bill, go protest outside of the white house. 

Its a petition to microsoft and facebook to drop support of the bill.  I don't think going outside of the whitehouse would do a damn thing to get them to drop support lol.

The simple thing is to threaten to stop using their products as a collective.

Got this in an email today.  I didn't copy links or anything because anyone can find the Demand Progress website from using Google if they want to sign any petitions or whatever.  I thought this was pretty interesting.  CISPA may get vetoed if it makes its way through congress by Obama.  Now, I wont hold my breath with some of the empty promises he has made in the past but it sounds hopeful.

Steven,

Friends,

This is HUGE: President Obama just threatened to veto CISPA if it makes its way through Congress.

Please click here to urge Obama to stand strong, and to let your lawmakers know that you support Obama's veto threat.

CISPA is up for a vote this week. It would obliterate any semblance of online privacy in the United States, giving the government -- including the military -- broad new powers to spy on Internet users.

The White House's letter expresses precisely the concerns that we've been highlighting over recent weeks -- and is a result of the public pressure against CISPA:

The White House says that any cybersecurity legislation must preserve "Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and [recognize] the civilian nature of cyberspace."
It says that, "The bill also lacks sufficient limitations on the sharing of personally identifiable information between private entities and does not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures necessary to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes."
And the letter goes on to assert that:

The American people expect their Government to enhance security without undermining their privacy and civil liberties.

Without clear legal protections and independent oversight, information sharing legislation will undermine the public's trust in the Government as well as in the Internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer protections.

This is an amazing development.  Let's make the most of it:

Just click here to urge Obama to stand strong and to tell your lawmakers to oppose CISPA.

Thanks.

-Demand Progress

PS- We only have a few days left to kill CISPA.  Please tell your friends to get involved by forwarding this email or using these links:

I think Steven said what I was gonna say.

Got this in an email today.  I didn't copy links or anything because anyone can find the Demand Progress website from using Google if they want to sign any petitions or whatever.  I thought this was pretty interesting.  CISPA may get vetoed if it makes its way through congress by Obama.  Now, I wont hold my breath with some of the empty promises he has made in the past but it sounds hopeful.

Steven,

Friends,

This is HUGE: President Obama just threatened to veto CISPA if it makes its way through Congress.

Please click here to urge Obama to stand strong, and to let your lawmakers know that you support Obama's veto threat.

CISPA is up for a vote this week. It would obliterate any semblance of online privacy in the United States, giving the government -- including the military -- broad new powers to spy on Internet users.

The White House's letter expresses precisely the concerns that we've been highlighting over recent weeks -- and is a result of the public pressure against CISPA:

The White House says that any cybersecurity legislation must preserve "Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and [recognize] the civilian nature of cyberspace."
It says that, "The bill also lacks sufficient limitations on the sharing of personally identifiable information between private entities and does not contain adequate oversight or accountability measures necessary to ensure that the data is used only for appropriate purposes."
And the letter goes on to assert that:

The American people expect their Government to enhance security without undermining their privacy and civil liberties.

Without clear legal protections and independent oversight, information sharing legislation will undermine the public's trust in the Government as well as in the Internet by undermining fundamental privacy, confidentiality, civil liberties, and consumer protections.

This is an amazing development.  Let's make the most of it:

Just click here to urge Obama to stand strong and to tell your lawmakers to oppose CISPA.

Thanks.

-Demand Progress

PS- We only have a few days left to kill CISPA.  Please tell your friends to get involved by forwarding this email or using these links:

that strange? i'm an subscriber on demand progress but i didn't get this e-mail.

fudge off jormer

Hey, at least he's on topic.

Of course, I didn't get the notice either, so I kinda empathize with him here.

Check your spam folder if you haven't.  A few of their emails have gone to my spam folder for some reason.

I got it too, but DP is fucking annoying. I unsubscribe every time I sign a petition because they send me a bunch of shit that I don't care about. Same with avazz.

Found it. Thanks guys.

I got it too, but DP is fucking annoying. I unsubscribe every time I sign a petition because they send me a bunch of shit that I don't care about. Same with avazz.

Yeah I generally don't care cuz I get spammed by almost everyone and their mother already anyway.

Figured I would bump this to post the following.

From: http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/cispa_passes?akid=1331.468733.Sfeqtw&rd=1&t=3

House Passes CISPA: Make Sure It Dies In The Senate

We pushed them to the brink, but House Republicans rammed through CISPA this afternoon, ahead of schedule.  Let's make sure it dies in the Senate: Please add your name at right.

CISPA would give the government and corporations vast new powers to track and share data about Americans' Internet use.

But our hundreds of thousands of emails and tens of thousands of phone calls have had a real impact:

Amendments were adopted that made CISPA (marginally) better.
Earlier this month CISPA was supposed to sail through, but we helped foment opposition, and the vote was far closer than anybody could have imagined even a couple of weeks ago.
Most Democrats held firm in opposition, and more than two dozen libertarian-leaning Republicans defied their leadership and voted no.
Most importantly, President Obama has threatened to veto CISPA.
The Senate will consider cyber security legislation in the coming weeks.  Let's turn up the heat right away: Tell the Senate to reject CISPA and any and all legislation that doesn't respect privacy and civil liberties.

Check your spam folder if you haven't.  A few of their emails have gone to my spam folder for some reason.

already check i'm only getting from avazz than demand progress and also this is the only e-mail i didn't received from demand progress, and the spam filter in my spam e-mail is disable, that why i getting a annoying e-mail containing the word "helzo".

Check your spam folder if you haven't.  A few of their emails have gone to my spam folder for some reason.

already check i'm only getting from avazz than demand progress and also this is the only e-mail i didn't received from demand progress, and the spam filter in my spam e-mail is disable, that why i getting a annoying e-mail containing the word "helzo".

Well sucks for you.  Seems you are the only one not getting it now.

UPDATES
bill have passed!!!

The House on Thursday approved cybersecurity legislation that privacy groups have decried as a threat to civil liberties.

The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), passed on a vote of 248 to 168.

Its goal is a more secure internet, but privacy groups fear the measure breaches Americans’ privacy along the way. The White House had weighed in on Wednesday, threatening a veto unless there were significant changes to increase consumer privacy. The bill was amended to provide more privacy protections, but it was not immediately clear whether the Senate or the White House would give the amended bill its blessing.

The measure, which some are calling the Son of SOPA, allows internet service providers to share information with the government, including the Department of Homeland Security and the National Security Agency, about cybersecurity threats it detects on the internet. An ISP is not required to shield any personally identifying data of its customers when it believes it has detected threats, which include attack signatures, malicious code, phishing sites or botnets. In short, the measure seeks to undo privacy laws that generally forbid ISPs from disclosing customer communications with anybody else unless with a court order.

The bill immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for voluntarily disclosing customer information thought to be a security threat. Internet companies are also granted anti-trust protection to immunize them against allegations of colluding on cybersecurity issues. The measure is not solely limited to cybersecurity, and includes the catchall phrase “national security” as a valid reason for turning over the data.

CISPA also allows ISPs to bypass privacy laws and share data with fellow ISPs in a bid to promptly extinguish a cyberattack.

Moments before the vote was taken during a daylong hearing, Rogers urged his colleagues to “stand up for America. Support this bill.” He said those who were opposing the measure — groups that include the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation — were practicing “obfuscation.”

The bill’s supporters include Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, Verizon, Oracle and many others.

The ACLU quickly blasted the measure’s passage. They and other groups said Americans’ private data should not be shared with the military, and that data sent to the government should be anonymized as much as possible to protect privacy.

“Cybersecurity does not have to mean abdication of Americans’ online privacy. As we’ve seen repeatedly, once the government gets expansive national security authorities, there’s no going back. We encourage the Senate to let this horrible bill fade into obscurity,” said Michelle Richardson, ACLU legislative counsel.

Some last-minute amendments included making non-national-security data subject to the Freedom of Information Act, sunsetting the measure after five years and barring the government (.pdf) from reviewing library, firearms, tax and medical records.

Rep. Edward Markey (D-Massachusetts) during the debate seemingly agreed with the ACLU. “Could the government use that personal information to spy on Americans? Yes,” he said. Rep. Dan Boren (D-Oklahoma) wasn’t convinced: “The government is not the enemy,” he said.

Amendments to remove language allowing the information-sharing in the name of “national security,” and to remove the NSA from the agencies receiving the data, never made it to the House floor.

The measure is now headed for the Senate. If it passes there, it will go to the White House for approval or veto.

source: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/house-passes-cispa/

look like we going to petition the other part of the gov't next...

gov't?

Government.

Didn't Obama say he'd veto it?

Didn't Obama say he'd veto it?

Obama says a lot of things.

Didn't Obama say he'd veto it?

He said he would veto it unless certain changes were made regarding privacy, if I recall correctly. Whether or not those changes were made... at this point, who knows?

I understand he also signed a bill and put underneath his signature that he didn't agree with it. 

And yes, Gov't is a shortened version of Government as previously stated.