Pointless Journalist Fight: Who Gets Credit For Tweeting A Story First?

Stupid Politics As Usual To Drive The CISPA Narrative

from the unfortunate dept

Wed, Apr 25th 2012 7:59pm — Mike Masnick

Well, this is not too surprising, but it is unfortunate. As the Obama administration has said it would veto CISPA, the House has now turned this into a partisan fight. As with IP issues, I tend to think it's dangerous and stupid when privacy fights become partisan. Once the debate is partisan, it seems to lose all sense of reason and perspective and just degrades into name calling. And there's a chance exactly that is happening with CISPA and other cybersecurity bills, as the Republicans are "daring" the Democrats to support these bills, with the political calculus being that if they don't support these bills and something terrible happens (planes falling from the sky, etc.) that they can then blame the Democrats for being soft on cybercrime. That narrative, of course, ignores the very real privacy concerns that are being raised by a variety of parties. It effectively shifts the entire debate away from finding a real solution, and into a situation where some are pressured to accept a bad solution for the sake of political optics.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cispa, cybersecurity, democrats, obama administration, privacy, republicans

40 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:19pm

Hey, RIAA, MPAA.

Dare you to not be stupid for a day.

Dare you to not have an agenda for a day.

Dare you to not be ridiculously out of touch for a day.

Come on, you know you want to. Gotta show you have the mental capacity, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:52pm
  
  Re:
  Ummm, the AA's don't support the bill. Are you such a shrill, hysterical loser that you rail against the AA's even though they don't have a dog in the fight? And you talk about their mental capacity? Who is stupid and out of touch? Good work, Einstein.
  
  http://intelligence.house.gov/hr-3523-letters-support
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:54pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I never said they supported the bill, did I?
    
    You sure you're one to talk about mental capacity?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Then what the fuck are you talking about?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 10:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    >Are you such a shrill, hysterical loser that you rail against the AA's even though they don't have a dog in the fight?
    
    Why not, you rail against Mike whether he writes the article or not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 2:52am
    
    Re: Re:
    the AA's don't support the bill
    
    Only someone trying to misinform would say that....
    
    they don't have a dog in the fight
    
    Who bribes/lobbies/corrupts the government ?
    IP , IP , IP the "AA"'s don't have a dog in that fight..
    
    But ...but...but ( hey... am I wrong ? )
    
    Ignorant LOSER or Someone trying to con people ?
    Either way.. YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 6:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Perhaps you can point to a letter or statement by the AA's demonstrating their support?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - wvhillbilly (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 9:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    You say the RIAA/MPAA don't support CISPA? If this is the case why were they so gung-ho to get SOPA/PIPA, ACTA and TPPA rammed through, even to the extent of doing everything in deepest secrecy? And they'd have done it if insiders to the plots hadn't leaked the news and triggered massive protests against these bills.
    
    Now who's the shrill, hysterical loser?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 9:43pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      You are, Cletus. Have you read the bills you cite? Can you even read at that level? Maybe you'd like to compare and contrast the provisions of SOPA/PIPA, the two foreign trade agreements and the CISPA bills for us. And what secrecy are you babbling about? SOPA/PIPA and CISPA are all part of the Congressional Record. ACTA and TPP are widely reported on. I guess that since you live in WVA your internet consists of a dial-up modem connected to a tin can and string that you don't get the latest news. Get out of the doublewide, drive an hour to town and ask the librarian to read you a few articles on these subjects. Hell, turn it into a vacation and bring your wife/sister with you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 28 Apr 2012 @ 12:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Reported on =/= being avaliable to look at, nor does it equal lack of secrecy. TPP is discussed in backdoor rooms, the only thing we know about it are the parts that have been leaked. It's being kept from the public.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:01pm
  
  Re:
  By the way, loser- the Silicon Valley Leadership Group wrote a letter in favor of the bill. Google, Facebook, Yousendit, eBay (among others) are all members. But what the fuck, let's rant about the evil AA's instead.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The dude, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:16pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Name calling really strengthens your argument AC dude.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:35pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think he's just pissy someone said that the *AA's were "out of touch". Typical shill fare.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 7:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No I would have said the same thing if you went off on a nutty rant against the 4H for supporting CISPA when they did not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 3:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I didn't go on any rant for anyone supporting CISPA. Just those supporting SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, TPP. Need I say more?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 3:48pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oh, also, obligatory:
        
        Umad, bro?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 3:03am
    
    Re: Re:
    WHY ?
    
    Cause google etc... get 100% IMMUNITY
    If they hand over all their databases to the government.
    Google are guilty as you say( for NON-IP reasons )
    
    100% IMMUNITY
    100% IMMUNITY
    100% IMMUNITY
    
    Any corporation would agree to that...ffs
    
    Naive to blame Google.
    It should NOT have been offered to ANY corp.
    
    BUT ... The "AA's" are guilty.
    
    They have been pushing the cyber security of IP
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 7:30am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Any corporation would agree to that...ffs
      
      That's odd. There are a whole lot of companies (tens of thousands) who haven't agreed to support the bill. Including all of the studios and labels. You should talk to your doctor. I understand the new generation of anti-psychotic medications might really be helpful for you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:30pm

I would like to say this to the house, you are opening Pandora's house by being impatient. That is what you are doing. It doesn't matter how you frame Obama.

What is more dangerous than Obama vetoing CISPA is Obama signing the bill into law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- wvhillbilly (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  I wouldn't put it past Obama to sign CISPA, notwithstanding his promise to veto it. After all, he promised not to sign the NDAA with its provision of allowing arrest and indefinite detention of anyone on US soil for any reason and without any due process, then sneaked and signed it on Jan 2 when he probably thought nobody was looking.
  
  The man is a liar and a sneak and has repeatedly ignored and violated the constitution with executive order after executive order many of which are unconstitutional on their face and all of which usurp the role of the congress.
  
  I see the USA on a fast track to becoming a police state, and Obama doing everything he can to push it along as fast as he can. IMO,he ought to be impeached and booted out of office. He doesn't even meet the qualifications for president of the United States, and his "birth certificate" has been shown to be a heavily doctored fake.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - boyIhopeIdon'tstartawarhere, 26 Apr 2012 @ 2:41pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I'm gonna say that yes, the NDAA signing wasn't a brilliant move at all. However, the birth-certificate argument is really not the correct argument, seeing as how it's never "been shown to be a heavily doctored fake".
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 9:49pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You are one stupid country fuck. I guess the years of inbreeding have reduced you to the mental capacity of one of the extras in "Deliverance". You WV rubes don't have family trees, you have wreaths. Mull that over awhile Goober.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Long (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:37pm

Uhhh... isn't one of the primary sponsors of the bill of the bill a Democrat? As in, C.A. �Dutch� Ruppersberger (D-MD)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael Long (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:39pm
  
  Re:
  Too much wine with dinner tonight. That's, "Isn't one of the primary sponsors of the bill a Democrat?"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 8:52pm

The primary sponsors are both from the Intelligence Committee. Micheal Rogers and C.A. �Dutch� Ruppersberger. However, the main person to start this bill was Micheal Rogers himself. Ruppersberger is the main "co" sponsor of this bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 9:24pm

"away from finding a real solution"

Why do we need to find a 'real solution' to a non-existing problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 10:55pm
  
  Re:
  Well... the problem is that IT experts are too lazy or incompetent to actually build secure systems in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, that would be the people who need to use security systems are too lazy to even bother setting it up.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:35pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It's probably not possible to implement an absolutely secure system that communicates with *anything* outside the system. When you're talking about something connected to the internet then you're even worse of, theoretical computer security increases with the complexity of the algorithm(s) used to secure it, practically speaking the more complicated the algorithms are the more likely human error is to occur and leave a whole in the system.
    
    If you accept that some level of insecurity is inevitable and instead strive for the best possible security while maintaining good plans for when it fails, then that's the best you're going to get without introducing Big Brother legislation like this.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 6:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I have a completely secure system. It's turned off, disconnected from power, and up in the top of my closet.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - John Fenderson (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 12:36pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That's not a secure system. Someone could break into your closet and steal the system.
        
        I suggest you embed the system in a large concrete block and store it on the ocean floor. Still not 100% secure, of course, but at least you'll only be vulnerable to the l33t.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 11:39pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Nah, that's not the problem at all. See, it doesn't matter how long they take to program a system, it's only 'perfect' until they then give the customers a go at it, and the massive tide of stupid comes crashing down, ruining their efforts.
    
    So unless you're claiming that it's their fault for not knowing about, planning for, and programing against every single stupid thing a user could do with a given piece of software, then I really don't see how it could be entirely their fault.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 7:07am
    
    Re: Re:
    No. The problem is users are stupid, and no matter how secure you thing your system is, your users will always finds ways to break it.
    
    There's an old IT joke that goes something like this:
    
    Whenever the sysadmin crates a fool-proof system, they come up a new kind of fool to break it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
ThumbsUpThumbsDown (profile), 25 Apr 2012 @ 10:38pm

Are the pecuniary interests of current Copyright Holders immediate National Security Interests?
Let's grant for a second that there are honerable, intelligent and well intentioned people whose calling is to be responsiblle each day and each second for the actual physical security of the the commonwealth.

So, why would such people, with full access to their best faculties, propose a Bill like CISPA, stuffed as is now widely known with the most adverse implications imaginable for the Constitutional Rights of every American?

If one is to take CISPA in isolation, one might say, "OOOOps! Must have been an oversight or some unintended consequences! Perhaps, an afterthought; or two."

But isn't this the same Political Establishment that produced PIPA, SOPA, and ACTA? And didn't those laws suffer from the same articulated abreviations of Constitutional Rights as CISPA? Isn't that EXACTLY why enraged Americans rejected those laws?

Is it impossible to believe that American National Security Proffessionals could not draft a narrowly taylord protocol granting the reasonable rights needed to address cybersecuriy risks of essential National Security assets?

Our problem is not CISPA or PIPA or SOPA or ACTA; but rather, our problem is with what lies behind the recurring totality of these laws: An American political class that tells Americans more clearly each day with each new legislative proposal, that they must accept some nullification of their Constitutional Rights in the interest of protecting existing pecuniary previledges of Intellectual Property distributors under current Copyright Law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 1:10am

Call the bluff
If it's going to be a partisan fight, then the Dems should just call the bluff and vote against the bill. Leave it up to the GOP to prove any damage from cybercrime.

Since most of Congress can't seem to even find Google on the web, what's the chance they would even recognize a cybercrime if it happened.

btw is CISPA supposed to stop identity theft or phishing? WTF are they even considering cybercrime? How does a cybercrime make planes fall from the sky? Congress should really stop using Hollywood writers to write the laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 1:22am

Partisan politics
Aint first past the post, two party politics great? All the show of democracy and nothing but pandering to commercial interests or the establishment: banks, media conglomerates, oil, et.al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 5:10am

CISPA is becoming a repeat of the PATRIOT act. The PATRIOT act attacked our right to privacy and other freedoms, but the politicians HAD to keep on passing and extending it again and again, for fear of being blamed if another terrorist attack happened.

Democrats frankly should wise up and realize that republicans are going to blame any kind of attack on them, even if they weren't in charge when it happened, just like republicans blamed Clinton for 9/11 because he cut military spending (something republicans conveniently forgot Bush #1 did first, and even called it a peace dividend).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 6:03am

man, i can't wait till a plane goes down again. we are going to win so hard! - sen. turtle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 26 Apr 2012 @ 8:11am

I'm a Republican, and if the Democrats refuse to support CISPA and something terrible happens, I'll applaud them for not passing a miserable bill that probably wouldn't have prevented the terrible thing anyway.
I don't care about petty posturing and grandstanding, I want competently written laws!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 26 Apr 2012 @ 8:29pm

Poli Tricks
Ahhh now we see what these so called pillars of society are really like.
One wonders if these name throwing twits behaved in the same manner when they were in diapers. Most probably.
let us all hop the Obama sticks to his promise and does the right thing and veto the whole bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]