White House Petition Against CISPA Gets Over The 100,000 Signature Threshold
from the good-sign dept
Yet another White House petition has made it over the 100,000 signature mark, which is necessary to get a response. This one is asking the White House not to support CISPA, arguing that the terms are too broad, and the possibility of abuse is simply too high. To date, the White House has actually been rather cool on CISPA, preferring an approach that actually does include some privacy protections (but, also one that has a few more mandates for companies). Just last week, DHS boss Janet Napolitano gave a speech in which she suggested that CISPA did not do enough to protect privacy -- and made it even more clear during Q&A, in which she said of CISPA:"There were no privacy protections built within it and it resided almost all of the cyber information monitoring responsibilities within the NSA, which of course is part of the military."Of course, some of this is a turf battle. CISPA gives more power to the Defense Department (which the NSA is a part of). The approach favored by the White House gives more power to Homeland Security.
Either way, this would make it easy for the White House to quickly come out in support of the petition, but still say that "something needs to be done" on cybersecurity -- but exactly what that is still fairly murky. There have been a number of rumors that CISPA supporters have been "negotiating" with the White House, and that could mean tradeoffs that allow a bad bill to get through. This is something that needs to be watched carefully.
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, petition, privacy, signatures
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Both by means of militaries defending free countries and via the political realm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Here's the deal:
Collapse all replies to a reported comment into the hidden comment, so it won't take up useful screen space, which is IMHO the trolls only goal:
To use up the first 2/3 of the comment space by posting shitty arguments and provoking replies from all the troll-feeders on TD, drawing attention from useful comments.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
As has been pointed out to this suggestion before, some of the most insightful comments come as replies to trollish comments. We wouldn't want to lose those.
Ironically, the trolls don't seem to even realise that they are spawning interesting and insightful conversation from their idiocy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Also, some replies are simply too damn funny ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Oh, I see: you're here for the lulz, not substance.
Just state your opinion on the topic, fanboys, if you have any, and allow others to do the same.
Ad hom should always be out of place. The few new readers dropping don't relish your vile remarks, nor are convinced by them.
This scheming to suppress opinion is HIGHLY indicative of your true ability and nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
You see, you may have forgotten but I already expressed agreement with you. At the time you weren't acting completely like an asshole as you are doing for the past few weeks. If you provide comments with citations (when needed), evidence, good argumentation I'll even switch sides and defend your point if I find what you presented enough to justify such. But no, you are the one that provides no substance at all, resorts to petty attacks and snarky remarks.
And regardless of what you think there's no censorship anywhere in this site. Your comments are all there to read. I just had to click the pink link to see your idiotic reply to my comment. The fact that your comment is hidden is because the community by large thinks you are an arsehole. Congratulations ;)
This scheming to suppress opinion is HIGHLY indicative of your true ability and nature.
Amusing because I never clicked the report button ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Well done dear sir!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Techdirt's fanboy-trolls definitely don't grasp that:
a) their notions are those of a small number of nettish weenies intent on getting something for nothing.
b) that they've nothing substantive and on topic, so they can only try to get inventive with ad hom.
c) blocking of comments is censorship of ideas, though fanboys claim they vigorously support free speech; obviously that's defined as "so long as agrees with me"
d) the frequent "reporting" and blocking of perfectly normal opinions is one of the major clues as to how petty are the fanboys here, how they don't wish to even know that contrary opinions exist
e) Techdirt fanboys have a lower tolerance for dissent than any other site I've seen. As numbers of commenters are low, it appears that the threshold for blocking is quite low too.
f) an easy and obvious way to defeat the blocking is simply by copy-and-paste as often as necessary
g) with Noscript and cdn.techdirt.com hosted out I don't even have to click to see the "blocked" comments
h) even if you succeed in running off dissenters, still doesn't make your notions workable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Dear Tech Dirt. We really need to keep this conversation at a conversational level with some intellect. It needs to stay on topic. For those trolling I won't mention any names Paul, But yes, delete all these superfluous rants, for they can go to AOL and vent there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Drown yourself in a toilet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
He would eventually procreate and this is not in the best interests of humanity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Carnegie Mellon University: Gone in 60 Seconds: The Impact of the Megaupload Shutdown on Movie Sales
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2229349
Brett Danaher & Michael D. Smith.
See there go read that crappy study, with a lot of assumptions about how you must look at the net effect while ignoring the true total net effect.
They also like to use the word "harmful" instead of trying to be objective which probably means those 2 stooges have a bias towards pro-copyright views just like you and are trying to put numbers on it.
The thing is they never ask the right questions.
They go on and on how you must look at the whole(net) to find the right answer and look at just a set of data to claim piracy is harmful to the "industry", I never saw other questions and data included like "How enforcement affects society", "What are the benefits and side effects of granting a monopoly to so many people", what is the net effect of a granted monopoly on society?
Only then somebody should claim that we should use more "enforcement" to deal with "piracy".
But you are not here to debate anything, you are here just to troll, so have a nice day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
From 2012:
New industry research shows piracy harms film and TV content sales
http://if.com.au/2012/10/02/article/SFDFWGUWDI.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
You defeat your own argument
So it's censorship, but you're so fuckin' awesome that you can defeat it easily. Yeah, move along..
Again, you say that blocking (or 'censoring') can be easily circumvented, yet still insisting on we don't even want to know about you 'perfectly normal opinions'.
Tell me, trollboy, how many of your puke disappeared permanently from the site?
I understand that it'd hurt your job experience if you couldn't spam 2-3 provocative comments on every sensitive story to take up the first ten pages of the comments section with the replies.
That's the point of my suggestion, you thick skinned mollusk, to fuck up your attempts at derailing meaningful conversation with your bleating
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Go build your own guitar and become famous blue, then we can talk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
At least here, you are given a chance, and despite the "censorship", people still have no trouble answering to you. Funny form of censorship, that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Also, some of us are not boys.
Bet that blew your mind, huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
However, we are constantly working on ways to improve the comments, so stay tuned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
@Zakida Paul
No comments are 'censored' anyway - to my knowledge - on TD, so no lost insightful comments. Anybody who want to take a shoot at the red herring in the barrel can have his shoot. It's just less distracting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Divorce the data from the presentation.
Tag the posts and let custom CSS files for anybody to view the thing the way they want it to.
So maybe people smegging stop asking for that smegging smeg.
I for example have to read the source to read the hidden files since I am not enabling Javascript, that is fine, I don't complain since the day that it really bother me, I can write a piece of Javascript to go through all the "flagged" comments and mark them "show", but I do understand that some people are never satisfied and want to do it their own way, that is fine too, so the answer is provide the data and let other do the layouting using their own custom CSS in their own browser, than people can choose to open the page with all flagged comments collapsed or all answers to a comment flagged collapsed or see everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
I disagree completely with this approach for two main reasons:
1) Some of the best, most informative debates I have seen here have been in threads started by a comment that were hidden.
2) The best answer to speech one doesn't agree with is to counter with your own speech. If you collapse the complete thread you also remove the counter arguments contained in the replies.
Just my 2˘.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
You assume it is possible to counter a troll. It's like mud-wrestling with the pig: you get dirty and he enjoys it.
Did you see ootb, bob or the others write a meaningful reply to any counter-argument beside of spewing idiotic nonsense and namecalling? I didn't, but maybe it's just me.
Their point is to - IMHO - divert the discussion to arguments with them.
People read so many comments, and if they have to scroll through ten pages of troll-whacking they hopefully miss the real opinions. That's how trolling and shilling works, and it works perfectly because people just can't leave that idiotic comment alone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
Even if someone is purposely trying to incite emotions or whatnot, aren't they still entitled to their opinion? The responsibility of free speech also means you have to accept someone else's right to their speech, doesn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
IMHO reporting should serve as a reporting tool for trollish or other disruptive behavior, not different opinions.
I'm talking about this kind of shit:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/02212922184/global-free-internet-act-introduced-con gress.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SUGGESTION TO TECHDIRT STAFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pesky people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pesky people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Splain me this non sequitur:
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up at same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where the fanboys troll the site with vulgar ad hom, and call anyone disagreeing "trolls"!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prices go up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Prices go up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]