SOPA - Internet as we know it about to be gone?

[PELHAM]

CISPA through the House of Representatives, fantastic news, isn't democracy wonderful. Bad day for hackers and criminals everywhere.
Nothing forced about it, they had a vote.....?
I guess those that understand how to read statutes and are open to sensible arguments won the day. Time to open a beer!

[Bee8190]

I still don't think for a moment that this is something to celebrate. Walker's link to CNET was indeed quite informative and the results are is sad. Not even (more than) 750.000 voters have had any weight on the decision whether CISPA passes or not.
I don't think CISPA would be so negatively viewed (in the end , there is apparently need for tougher meassures on cyber security protection) if, as said, the "Not-Withstanding" gave this legislation so much legal power, superior to other laws, basicaly replacing those when fit.
The big brother was there, hidden and always present but now it is awakening and getting all legal, all powerful.

I do wonder what else is to come becouse I got that feeling this ain't over and congress got a lot more in their sleeves

[PELHAM]

I still don't think for a moment that this is something to celebrate. Walker's link to CNET was indeed quite informative and the results are is sad. Not even (more than) 750.000 voters have had any weight on the decision whether CISPA passes or not. I don't think CISPA would be so negatively viewed (in the end , there is apparently need for tougher meassures on cyber security protection) if, as said, the "Not-Withstanding" gave this legislation so much legal power, superior to other laws, basicaly replacing those when fit. The big brother was there, hidden and always present but now it is awakening and getting all legal, all powerful.
I do wonder what else is to come becouse I got that feeling this ain't over and congress got a lot more in their sleeves

PS can you justify the following:

Not even (more than) 750.000 voters have had any weight on the decision whether CISPA passes or not.

The CNET article states that 750,000 people have signed up to a website that oposes CISPA, which means what? The population of the USA is 311,591,917 - Jul 2011. That is a 0.24% opposition. To anyone with normal logical reasoning that might say something...... As I have said many times before, how is it right that a tiny minority should dictate the way the rest live? I'm happy with CISPA because it will be another tool to stop industrial espionage and hacking. That affects everyone as our taxes have to pay for the resulting losses, damage to economies and security fixes.

I am happy with the CNET article in general because it mostly supports my argument, part of it highlights the nonsense that certain people talk eg:

"Notwithstanding" would trump wiretap laws, Web companies' privacy policies, gun laws, educational record laws, census data, medical records, and other statutes that protect information, warns the ACLU's Richardson: "For cybersecurity purposes, all of those entities can turn over that information to the federal government."

Wiretap laws don't apply here? Gun laws don't apply to your internet records? Your ISP does not have your educational records, census data or medical records? It's nonsensical... lol. It's true that it would trump ISP privacy policies but why should hackers have any right to privacy? That is who will be targetted by this, no one else, as said in other threads the intelligence agencies do not have the resources to spy on everyone. You really need to work hard to get to be noticed. They have better things to do than poke through the average persons emails.

Please read the rest of the CNET article, it's really well balanced and shows that most of the spurious arguments put forward in this thread were not true. I'm happy Walker linked to it.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57...ffect-you-faq/

As for congress the next vote will be in the Senate: The Senate is currently composed of 51 Democrats, 47 Republicans, and 2 independents, both of whom caucus with the Democrats. Could be more interesting.

No need to be frightened of the unfamiliar Bee. as I said before:
Notwithstanding is a standard legal term and is used in many types of legal documents. It's use is not unusual here.
e.g. The term notwithstanding is used as a preposition in drafting contracts to indicate that the wording that follows is to apply in spite of, without regard to, limited by, or prevented from operation by some other provision.

That is perfectly normal legal language and the meaning is clear. Without such terms the practical benefits and application of this document would be difficult as anyone trying to prevent a cybersecurity threat would need lengthy legal advice before obtaining the information. By the time a judgement was made the hacking may have already taken place so this law would be redered impractical. It's common sense, time is a factor in preventing these crimes occurring.

For clarity the clauses in CISPA where this is used are:

(1) IN GENERAL-
`(A) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDERS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cybersecurity provider, with the express consent of a protected entity for which such cybersecurity provider is providing goods or services for cybersecurity purposes, may, for cybersecurity purposes--
`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity; and
`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government.

`(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes--
`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and
`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.

Again, as is clear from the language, it's designed to prevent hacking and industrial espionage.

[mrcash2009]

I read the article and decoded your deduction, and, I lost the energy to respond fully becuase, well ... its not worth the bother it so comical, although I will highlight a real gems:

It's true that it would trump ISP privacy policies but why should hackers have any right to privacy? That is who will be targetted by this, no one else

Isnt it in place for OUR right to privacy? Last time I checked Hackers were not the majority online ISP users, so how does it effect "no one else"?????

Its true because on the simplest of logic, agencies cant be arsed to look at tom dick or harry even though this will open it up so they just can, becuase, you know, you can trust such agencies with such gleaming track records over history using such tools, plus the fact that it only "keeps us safe" from hackers. I notice the patriot act did really well too with the same mantra, nothing was ever used for something other than the bad men. I mean we could all be a hacker couldnt we? And we need ISP privacy trumped to save us from ourselves it seems.

The CNET article states that 750,000 people have signed up to a website that oposes CISPA, which means what? The population of the USA is 311,591,917 - Jul 2011. That is a 0.24% opposition. To anyone with normal logical reasoning that might say something......

Really, REALLY re-read this and see what's wrong with it.

it's designed to prevent hacking and industrial espionage.

We know ... thats not the point.

You post like a television spokes person, after reading the article which you like as it backs up your points (?), and the doublethink you unfold in the same instance, I have, absolutely 100% lost complete interest in your points, as none of them stack up with the information surrounding it other than your "how it is now" black & white nuclear family rose tinted glass 2.4 children and the dog view on it all, have fun arguing mate, its been a blast, print this thread out for the children and their children when they are on-line, this is just a playing field level ready for more later to be stacked on, but you dont see that, you are completely blind. Enjoy batting for the team thats also targeting you later on ... fun times ahead.

Stop posting about it everyone, everything is ok, nothing to see here ... move along now, the pesky hackers will get whats coming to them *shakes fist* .. once they are all gone we still have ISP privacy trumped, but still no worries as your tax will be better once we are saved from them.

[PELHAM]

Isnt it in place for OUR right to privacy? Last time I checked Hackers were not the majority online ISP users, so how does it effect "no one else"?????

I don't know where you think the handfull of people who will work on this will get the time to look through the webtraffic of 311.5 million people. They will have a small number of priority targets. International espionage, industrial espionage and hackers. That is fact, I have even contacted an associate who works in the field who confirmed this to me. They don't have the time or the resources to go any further.

Really, REALLY re-read this and see what's wrong with it.

In the USA there are:
311.5 million people
164 million PC's
293 million mobile phones
142 million social network users
This legislation was proposed many months ago and there was significant press coverage yet only 750,000 (that's 0.24% of the population) could be bothered to sign up to oppose it, despite widespread internet access. Am I going to have to explain how democracy works again or are you going to look it up yourself.

You post like a television spokes person,

Why thank you, I do my best to be professional at all times. You post like a conspiracy nut and most, if not all of your objections, to everything pertain to be about some unquantifiable, unidentified future disaster (UFD lol, are UFD's the new paranoia now UFO's are out of fashion) that any change in law or western international policy will produce. When ever I have asked for something concrete about exact worries I can't get a legible response.

[Macser]

This legislation was proposed many months ago and there was significant press coverage yet only 750,000 (that's 0.24% of the population) could be bothered to sign up to oppose it, despite widespread internet access. Am I going to have to explain how democracy works again or are you going to look it up yourself.

That could be more to do with apathy and compliance.Lack of resistance to certain legislation,isn't necessarily an indicator of informed choice.

[PELHAM]

That could be more to do with apathy and compliance.Lack of resistance to certain legislation,isn't necessarily an indicator of informed choice.

Tell them you're going to take away their guns and see how many signups you get lol. Internet access is available in nearly every home in the US, if there was strong opposition you would see it. Fact is most people know what a problem the lack of a coherent Cyber Security policy is.

[Macser]

We'll have to disagree on one point at least.I don't think most people know a lot about online security policy.Their interest may be roused were it something more obvious.Such as the weapon scenario you mention.Or the shutting down of a site like Facebook.Actually,I think shutting down Facebook would probably be the internet equivalent of a cataclysm.

Barring that,I think most people simply aren't interested.And the ones who are,find the entire subject confusing.Not surprising,considering the conflicting information flying around.Of course that's just my take on it.I can't claim to have studied it to any great degree.

[mrcash2009]

I don't know where you think the handfull of people who will work on this will get the time to look through the webtraffic of 311.5 million people. They will have a small number of priority targets. International espionage, industrial espionage and hackers. That is fact, I have even contacted an associate who works in the field who confirmed this to me. They don't have the time or the resources to go any further.

Currently and officially at this particular time with this particular framework, at it stands right now.

In the USA there are:
311.5 million people
164 million PC's
293 million mobile phones
142 million social network users
This legislation was proposed many months ago and there was significant press coverage yet only 750,000 (that's 0.24% of the population) could be bothered to sign up to oppose it, despite widespread internet access. Am I going to have to explain how democracy works again or are you going to look it up yourself.

Complete codshit, you know as well as I do this type of legislation only interests people who are looking, then you have the population who are willing to accept anything an official will say, media doesn't fully report (both sides of the story), poor people, people without a PC the lst goes on in that "311.5 million people" .. so to be honest your "stats" aren't facts at all, you are pulling form a CNET article that said it, the unfortunate part of it Pelhmam is that lots of those larger figures of people will only notice it later on.

Rather than focusing on the bottom scale, why dont you show the stats & facts of the 311.5 million people - 75,000 that are jumping for joy and ran out voting yes and fully informed and understood it all? If people got fully educated on it correctly and there was a vote to put it through (than only by default putting it through and maybe there will be opposition) then your stats might be reality, but "democracy" doesn't work that way with this does it. We should know there are bad apples and thus need officials to tell us how bad they are and simply not worry because its too technical and "its for our safety", so wo betide having issue with it.

if there was strong opposition you would see it. Fact is most people know what a problem the lack of a coherent Cyber Security policy is.

Yes Pelham the average Joe beer drinker in the tinterwebz know this for sure, or at least they know what you know .. which is we need privacy to be inched away to "get the bad guys". After all the internet has deid on us and caused a market crash and overpayment of taxes becuase of the lack of security since its inception.

Why thank you, I do my best to be professional at all times.

Official spokesperson as in a contractually compromised team batting player.

You post like a conspiracy nut and most, if not all of your objections, to everything pertain to be about some unquantifiable, unidentified future disaster (UFD lol, are UFD's the new paranoia now UFO's are out of fashion) that any change in law or western international policy will produce.

So you now align me with a nut & UFO's (I mean come one how on earth is that to do with this subject mr professional?) and "unquantifiable & unidentified future disaster" maybe you should direct that point to those trying to enforce this, in some ways that would be admitting most patriot and terror laws are conspiracy nut work, how Ironic, as I am not the one picking out bad case scenarios and then trying to onset blanket legislation to openly effect everyone else who isn't partaking in such "threats" but get sucked into the cross-hairs to keep me safe, with some flimsy safety net that "they only look at the bad men".

You work under a very compartmentalised way of seeing it, which makes you blind to anything other than black & white and it seems to me your line of work has helped in that with training.

[PELHAM]

Actually,I think shutting down Facebook would probably be the internet equivalent of a cataclysm.

Lol save that one for next April 1st, don't let the joke run too long though, it could start WW3 or mass suicides lol!