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

[PELHAM]

It's quite simple, to work out if you are a national security risk - you look up the definition of national security:

national security — A collective term encompassing both national defense and foreign relations of the United States. Specifically, the condition provided by: a. a military or defense advantage over any foreign nation or group of nations; b. a favorable foreign relations position; or c. a defense posture capable of successfully resisting hostile or destructive action from within or without, overt or covert.

In 2010, Barack Obama included an all-encompassing world-view in his definition of America's national security interests as:
• The security of the United States, its citizens, and U.S. allies and partners;
• A strong, innovative, and growing U.S. economy in an open international economic system that promotes opportunity and prosperity;
• Respect for universal values at home and around the world; and
• An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

So based on that MrCash I wouldn't worry, you are more likely to be a danger to yourself than a "significant risk" to US national security and the intelligence services will not give you a second thought. The dystopian ramblings are entertaining though, maybe you could write a book. The phrase you have artfully and colourfully quoted above is quite clear, only the paranoid would read more into it.

[mrcash2009]

In 2010, Barack Obama included an all-encompassing world-view in his definition of America's national security interests as:

An international order advanced by U.S. leadership that promotes peace, security, and opportunity through stronger cooperation to meet global challenges.

Oh yes indeed, Obama certainly loves his "one world" push, you do realise all you post promotes exactly what people are concerned about, funny really.

you are more likely to be a danger to yourself than a "significant risk" to US national security and the intelligence services will not give you a second thought.

I think I post in general about it, and you yet again simplify it when its about data getting sucked into a scenario I stated, not some high paid agent in an inteligent service eating crisps bored "looking at an individual" form the outset (now who sounds like a novel or crap film plot), you tried this already it doesn't work.

So national security is in fact universal & global, which still shows how that Q&A statement to quell peoples concerns doesn't stack up fully. Which lead onto extradition we see from people in the UK for hacking, even though they should be tried at home, yes this global universal all encompassing view shows itself clear, thanks for posting that.

only the paranoid would read more into it

Only the black & white compartmentalised gatekeeper would simply ignore it outright, and you still didn't answer my question.

Wait until you see what agencies do with this legislation like the past, you might want to check them out for "reading into" something first of all, interpretation is a great theme these days. It will be very interesting to see how far fetched things really are once reports come forward later if this goes through, its not about how ludicrous my posts might be (in your view), or how perfect yours are with facts, its actually about something that "can be" or "could be" abused, more important than anything else. Mix that with history, the levels of which will use such legislation, and its not fantasy to be concerned.

[PELHAM]

The international bit was refering to US allies as is clearly stated in the post. There are international agreements such as NATO and ANZUS which form part of of the US National Security interests, that is what it refers to. Nice jump to the wrong conclusion again lol.

[mrcash2009]

I know, and it still results in the same (global) and still doesn't answer the question I had, but then that's a US subject topic I suppose. And just to get it back to the point, it was justified no data would be used in any other way outside the cyber threat (CISPA's point & which under questions of if it could be used further it shows that it "can be") and that's "if" its under national security with some "significance", which is a crap defence becuase you have shown all of it mainly is, that's my point all along in terms of using national security and data getting through and viewed under the protocol of CISPA, meaning, it will not protect such data all things considered (no matter what they use it for later, theory or not).

And, to stick to a cycle ... its customisable and can be modified, which no matter if it ever does get abused, does in fact open up a caveat to be abused, political parties change, events happen, and therefore its worrying in my view to not have concern, and is nothing to do with conspiracy, yet future unknowns and planning for future events governments pay and project all day long, but thats somehow ok as long as its "the bad men" on another part of the globe.

Theres a great buzzword right now due to Murdoc case called "Willful blindness", something that will be seen allot more of as things progress, to think this will not be the case elsewhere, and nothing will get modified or abused in the future, just take a trip through the past (past & history tell all).

[PELHAM]

Willful Blindness can work both ways, I say you are willfully blind to the issue (or maybe just have difficulty comprehending the language). You still have not read the Q&A properly have you? http://intelligence.house.gov/qa-abo...rsecurity-bill

The government may not search the cyber threat information for non-cybersecurity or national security information. (Amendment at markup)

Taking the phrase that appears beneath it (see colourful text in #531) and quoting it in isolation without reference to the other strict limitations is misleading.

The government may not use the cyber threat information for other purposes unless a significant cybersecurity or national security purpose exists. (Amendment at markup)

The other limitations in the bill put great restrictions on exactly what the Cyber Threat information will be. So your irrational fear that the national security protocols will be redrafted to allow general spying can't happen without a Congressional amendment as I said in post #530. There is no way this law can be used as a general spying tool unless it goes back to congress for debate, lobbying and an amendment. You have to take the text of the bill as a whole as it's a series of legal logic gates that limit what can be done with it.

Thats what I find disturbing about the civil rights industry, surely they employ people with the brains to understand this obvious fact? Surely they wouldn't be deliberately misleading or tell blatant lies?

[mrcash2009]

There is no way this law can be used as a general spying tool unless it goes back to congress for debate, lobbying and an amendment.

As I told you Pelham a future online "event" under the fast-track rule of "Terror" that media align with "hacker" can happen, so as much as you cant believe anything due to process, you have seen what has been passed fairly fast in the past due to this subject, and nothing is any less online, esp when you can see how its being treated through the media. I will hold you to "no way" seeing as your work in these circles and will be in the dept on cases.

Thats what I find disturbing about the civil rights industry

You find 'civil rights' industry dusturbing? What planet are you truly on?

Surely they wouldn't be deliberately misleading or tell blatant lies?

Hahahaha, im sorry I cant help myself here, have you ever checked history of government & agencies and the last 11 years and more? hahahah.

More comedy for the future.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18003315

Queen's Speech: Internet monitoring plan to have 'strict safeguards'

Plans to make it easier for the police and intelligence agencies to monitor e-mails, phone calls and internet use have been unveiled, but with promises of "strict safeguards".

The Draft Communications Bill would update existing procedures for allowing access to "vital" information. This includes phone numbers and e-mail addresses, but not the content of conversations.

Certainly is "vital" but no conversations .. PHEW!

This is the real world Pelham, one you cant comprehend, inch away further inwards tagging "safeguard" to it, but ever closer ... no CISPA required and in your own country much closer to home & with elements of what people did not like about CISPA. Happy "nothing to hide nothing to worry about" religious mantra for the webz.

[PELHAM]

As I told you Pelham a future online "event" under the fast-track rule of "Terror" that media align with "hacker" can happen, so as much as you cant believe anything due to process, you have seen what has been passed fairly fast in the past due to this subject, and nothing is any less online, esp when you can see how its being treated through the media. I will hold you to "no way" seeing as your work in these circles and will be in the dept on cases.

So you admit what you said about CISPA is completely wrong and that new legislation would have to be passed for your dystopian fantasy to come true? You and various civil rights organisations are not telling the truth about this, can I ask why? I don't see why you and they have to lie about it?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18003315

Queen's Speech: Internet monitoring plan to have 'strict safeguards'
Certainly is "vital" but no conversations .. PHEW!
This is the real world Pelham, one you cant comprehend, inch away further inwards tagging "safeguard" to it, but ever closer ... no CISPA required and in your own country much closer to home & with elements of what people did not like about CISPA. Happy "nothing to hide nothing to worry about" religious mantra for the webz.

Would you like to move on to a different subject now you have painted yourself into a corner over CISPA, I don't mind at all?

[mrcash2009]

So you admit what you said about CISPA is completely wrong and that new legislation would have to be passed for your dystopian fantasy to come true?

No!? Where did I admit those words "LOL"!? I used that framework of yours to explain a reason how your view on a slow process may not be the case under cetain "cirumstances" along side what I already said, nice try, a bit childish, but nice try.

You and various civil rights organisations are not telling the truth about this, can I ask why? I don't see why you and they have to lie about it?

This is now pathetic, truly pathetic (looking at the world stage and not telling the truth), but keep posting it all speaks for itself in the end mr gatekeeper

Would you like to move on to a different subject now you have painted yourself into a corner over CISPA, I don't mind at all?

And again, pathetic, I dont much give a stuff where you move too, this subject isn't yours alone as I mentioned before, and in comparison it shows where this is leading regardless. Although Im sure you have much more gatekeeper views on it with only one view and that this is somehow all absolutely fine for the public for now and the future on-line, so it will be ground-hog day in some respects. BTW I didnt see a "democratic" open vote for this either funny enough, you know, for those who are using the net and that would be the majority of millions in the UK.

Your last post was like something in a school break time, talk about reactionary, you really have convinced "yourself" haven't you, I sometimes wonder if we are having the same conversation. You clearly have no place to go on this but "defend defend defend" until one day you might actually be incorrect, god forbid that should be the case, and that's the key thing to all of this, its not about the subject which is important regardless of who's posting, but you wont ever be wrong .. time will show this. Post #538 has some telling signs, I call it projecting.

You do realise gatekeeping for a team when a team will show its true colours in time will pull the rug from under you harder.

[PELHAM]

Since I proved that CISPA could not evolve without Congressional amendment you seem to have suddenly dropped the argument that it could. In the 1st paragraph #537 you say that something else would have to be passed. So you therefore admit what I said in #530 about the need for congressional amendment was correct.

All you had to do to change my mind on CISPA was provide a logical argument and evidence for it. You failed to do so. You can't even provide any logical reasoning for what you say might happen in the future. So ROFL.

[mrcash2009]

Since I proved that CISPA could not evolve without Congressional amendment you seem to have suddenly dropped the argument that it could. In the 1st paragraph #537 you say that something else would have to be passed. So you therefore admit what I said in #530 about the need for congressional amendment was correct.

Go an "argue" in a dark room with yourself, everything I have stated is clear to read for anyone, your projecting again.

You can't even provide any logical reasoning for what you say might happen in the future.

The future will undoubtedly be the present, and is also history to take note from, seeing as we are all on-line for the future and hacking wont go away, then what more logical reasoning is needed, the legislation pathe's the way to be customised and under "terror" it can be processed faster (see Patriot act fast tracking and who actually read it before passing through the standard process), its only illogical to you.

All you had to do to change my mind on CISPA was provide a logical argument and evidence for it. You failed to do so.

And therein lies everything you are about, argumentative and not debating with it completely central to yourself, as if changing your mind is the sole existence of this thread / CISPA / the subject (all forms of this legislation type) and points raised, and why I post in response, and a sole justification on behalf of the populous, please get over yourself, I dont give a rats ass about changing your mind. I do however give a rats ass about balance in a debate and highlighting a subject when the forum title was specifically in regards to concerns. Yet another telling post my dear watson.

I dont see where in this threads entire subject or initial creation your name on the OFP and a direct set task to post to 'change your mind' as some kind of be all and end all conclusion to it. You dont win a prize or anything.