The Law Should Never Be Secret, So Why Will CISPA Debate Be Secret?

Politics

from the ridiculous dept

Tue, Apr 9th 2013 10:55pm — Mike Masnick

As we mentioned last week, CISPA is scheduled for markup tomorrow, and the markup will be done behind closed doors without any public scrutiny allowed. This makes no sense. They are not debating the reason for the law, but rather the text of the law itself. The law will be public, and any debate about the language and amendments included should be public as well. As Julian Sanchez points out, it makes perfect sense for intelligence briefings to be held in secret, but it never makes sense to hold debates about what the law should be in secret. So why is Congress doing so?

In the meantime, it appears that the main backers of the bill will be supporting some amendments (and may release a manager's amendment), which marginally limits how the information it gets from companies can be used. However, this does little to deal with the real problems of the bill: the immunity companies get for sharing pretty much any private info with any government agency. At the very least, there's no reason that CISPA shouldn't require that companies strip personally identifiable information from any data they share with the government.

But, really, this deserves to go much further. At no point -- in the many years that cybersecurity legislation has been discussed -- has anyone in Congress explained why we need this. Yes, they've given FUD-like horror stories about planes falling from the sky, or they've pointed to Chinese hackers. But what they have not done is show how (a) current law gets in the way of the necessary information sharing to help combat any threats or (b) how CISPA will help stop such attacks. You'd think that both of these points would be at the top of the list of the things that Congress would be explaining to get support for this bill. Instead, we hear scare stories about evil hackers out to destroy us, and an awful lot of "trust us." It's tough to trust the government, though, when they won't even let you know what they're debating.

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, hearings, markup, secrecy

72 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Uriel-238 (profile), 9 Apr 2013 @ 11:12pm

Encryption now.
We need to start encrypting even the most quotidian of communications whether email or SMS, and we need to start doing that now.

This isn't about foreign attacks. This is about fears of internet-organized insurrection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rapnel (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:59am
  
  Re: Encryption now.
  " This is about fears of internet-organized insurrection. "
  
  As illustrated by the Occupy movement monitoring via corporate and government coordination?
  
  It would seem the government is going after a financial transaction model for any/all Internet communications.
  
  There is an undercurrent here that is not yet clear. It may be that the government does indeed fear the governed and as such getting at their electronic movements without any degree of culpability, for any party, is a leg up for "authority". The problem seems to me that that is not, nor could it ever be, truly, constitutional. This is a fairly clear corporate & government mesh that attempts to cleanly and irrevocably grant that combined authority a free pass. Question it.
  
  Encryption. +1
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 9 Apr 2013 @ 11:55pm

Just another good deal "we'll have to pass it so we can see whats in it" government POS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 12:34am

This Is About Political Protection
This is about preventing law makers from being yelled at by the public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:17am
  
  Re: This Is About Political Protection
  Yes.
  They are well aware that a large number of their constituents disagree with their actions and therefore they do not what their actions to be known.
  
  They could actually do their job and represent the desires of their constituents and stuff, nahhhh that will never happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- TheLastCzarnian (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 8:19am
  
  Re: This Is About Political Protection
  I just have one question.
  
  What does, "by the people, for the people" mean?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 1:34am

it will only be secret as far as the public is concerned. the government, businesses and industries will all know exactly what is in the bill, who it will affect (the people only) and how it will affect them. there will be no clause in it to allow any sort of fight back and no clause to enable reclaims when falsely accused. that means 3out of 4, which is better than most bills Congress puts forward.
the sad thing is that i am sure there are lots of government members and officials that recognize how bad things are getting, how close we are to being run as Police States, but they dont do anything about it. either they are shouted down every time they try to speak, receive serious threats or are paid a hell of a lot to keep quiet. it doesn't alter the fact that the USA, once a pillar of freedom, is now practically worthless and useless. what a turn around in a few short years!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 1:44am

You are hereby sentenced to death by dronestrike by a secret court, based upon a secret interpretation of the Patriot Act and evidence from surveillance by a law we made up in secret.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:09am
  
  Re:
  ...And here I thought Bioshock Infinite was a twisted satire.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lurker Keith, 10 Apr 2013 @ 2:44am

The Terrorists have won...
Secret anything (less info on the missions to go after Terrorists) in the Government means the Terrorists (& Hollywood/ RIAA) have won & Democracy has lost.

Any laws arrived at in secret, or w/ secret interpretations, should be illegal at the very least.

Democracy has no room for secrets, of any kind, regarding the Public.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:01am
  
  Re: The Terrorists have won...
  I've become increasingly convinced that the real "Terrorists" today are the United States.
  
  You bomb people in their homes and label them combatants. You spy (and force others to spy for you) on foreign nationals as well as your own people. You ignore international treaties when they don't work in your favor but use them to bully other nations when they do.
  
  tl:dr They won a while back.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - rw (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 8:16am
    
    Re: Re: The Terrorists have won...
    I live here and I agree with you. The Terrorist won and now we are them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:03am

Secret? Kind of like your accusation yesterday that President Clinton had violated the CFAA but where you refused to explain how? Really?

LMAO! This place is awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:23am
  
  Re:
  He said:
  
  While not all courts agree, the DOJ has argued that merely disobeying a website's terms of service means that you've violated the CFAA by accessing content either without authorization or by exceeding authorization.
  
  Let's jump over to Twitter's terms of service. There, they clearly forbid impersonation:
  Impersonation: You may not impersonate others through the Twitter service in a manner that does or is intended to mislead, confuse, or deceive others
  
  And goes on to explain how through not being clear Clinton may have violated the terms of use.
  
  It's really simple CFAA makes terms of service violation a crime, Clinton may have violated the ToS.
  Oh and he does no accuse Clinton of breaking the law but puts forward that it could be argued that he had (highlighting his issue with overboard laws that are open to interpretation).
  
  9/10 made me rage pretty hard. Reported, called the FBI and then sobbed into my pillow for an hour.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:35am
    
    Re: Re:
    Huh? How did President Clinton violate the TOS? And what about the other elements of the crime? There is no crime of ONLY violating a TOS. There's other elements that have to met as well. What about those?
    
    Mike didn't even tell us which section of the CFAA he was looking at, much less run us through the elements. If I were going to suggest that the President had committed a crime, I would identify the part of the statute that I thought he had violated. And I would bother to explain why I thought that. I wouldn't have a secret explanation--that is, unless my purpose was to spread mindless FUD.
    
    No. Not Mike. He would never spread FUD, would he?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:49am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Did you still not read the fucking article?
      God I hate you.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:59am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Did you still not read the fucking article?
        God I hate you.
        
        Great response. So substantive. Oh wait...
        
        Care to explain how President Clinton may have violated the CFAA? Walk me through the analysis. Thanks.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 4:18am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, we're not playing your game. If you want detailed analysis, you need to demonstrate to us how its done. You see how that works, where the accuser gets to explain how something is "wrong" in their view, in detail with quotations and citations?
        
        Instead, here is your debate process:
        1) Say something controversial without evidence, usually with some direct or indirect ad hominem
        2) Claim that anyone responding and the OP never provide any evidence or analysis
        3) Act like a victim when you are rebutted or ad hom'd yourself.
        
        I can tell you enjoy it, but let's not pretend it's actually reasoned debate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 4:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Um, huh? I'm not the one suggesting that the President has committed a federal crime. I'm pointing out that if I were to make such an accusation, I would back it up. A lot. I would have details and arguments and statutory text and case law. I would never make that suggestion unless I could back it up. But, that's me, and I'm not a mindless FUD-pumper.
        
        So you think it's fine and dandy to accuse presidents of federal crimes without even explaining how it is you think they committed the crime? Or can you admit that it's idiotic FUD? Just curious. I know you'll back Mike, but I'm still asking.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 4:42am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        First, it would be equally valid for me to say, "I know you will dispute Mike"--but how does that advance the debate? The point is to back your assertions or point out HOW someone else's assertions are flawed.
        
        Second, still not playing your game. Wake me when you cite the specific passage(s) where he "accused" the president of something as opposed to asked a question about the collective actions of two individuals.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 4:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It's right there in the title: "Did Stephen Colbert And President Bill Clinton Violate The CFAA?"
        
        Mike is suggesting that President Clinton may have violated the CFAA. Yet nowhere in the article does Mike bother to explain how anything the President did was a federal crime. That's kind of dishonest, wouldn't you agree? It's FUD, is it not?
        
        If it were Swartz or Dotcom or some other copyleft hero, would Mike have so nonchalantly suggested that they had violated the CFAA? Of course not. Mike would throw out every argument and excuse and he would defend them to the end of the earth. Why the silly double standard? Hmmmm... It's not FUD-related, is it? Hmmm....
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:07am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You missed the entire point of the article seriously, READ IT AGAIN.
        
        The idea is not to accuse ANYONE of breaking the law. The point is that the DOJ may be interpreting it far to broadly. Applying their broad definition could make many people felons. That is what Mike is speaking out against, he's not trying to get Clinton charged with anything.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:12am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Applying the broad definition could make everyone felons.
        
        FTFY. And that is the point - make it ridiculously easy to charge someone with a felony, then, when they take an action the government doesn't like? BAM! Easy way out.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You missed the entire point of the article seriously, READ IT AGAIN.
        
        The idea is not to accuse ANYONE of breaking the law. The point is that the DOJ may be interpreting it far to broadly. Applying their broad definition could make many people felons. That is what Mike is speaking out against, he's not trying to get Clinton charged with anything.
        
        Walk me through it. Show me the broadest interpretation there is and then apply it to the facts (even ones you might be assuming) to show that President Clinton committed a federal crime under the CFAA. You can't.
        
        And Mike didn't do that because he can't either. In other words, his whole premise was ridiculous FUD. Can't you guys be critical of Mike, or do your brains turn off?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Can't you accept that there is value and thoughtfulness in the articles here or does your brain turn off?
        
        Huh, since that is valid in either direction, I guess it is meaningless...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:23am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yes, there is absolutely some value in some articles here. I learn stuff here all the time. But there's also an incredibly deep and dishonest current that runs through Mike's posts. The fact that he can't even discuss his posts on the merits tells you all you need to know about his sincerity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:05am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Again, " incredibly deep and dishonest current that runs through Mike's posts." is equally applicable to yours.
        
        Again, ad hom, no evidence, and worthless. This is why you have no credibility here. This is no different than anyone here calling you a stupid troll.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The evidence is right here. Mike is suggesting that the president committed a federal crime, yet not even attempting to make any effort to explain it. That's dishonest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your lack of ability to comprehend his explanation is certainly evidence of something, just not his "dishonesty".
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The evidence is right here. Mike is suggesting that the president committed a federal crime, yet not even attempting to make any effort to explain it. That's dishonest.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ben S (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Maybe I'm feeding a troll here, but here goes.
        
        The Department of Justice (DoJ) has claimed that violation of the Terms of Service (ToS) is a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). Anyone (including Clinton) who has ever violated the ToS of a website, is, by the DoJ interpretation of the law, guilty of violating the CFAA, and, if convicted, is a felon.
        
        There was no accusation by Mike. His complaint here, was that the DoJ interpretation of the CFAA is far too broad, and makes felons out of the average citizen for doing things that would be considered mundane and ordinary, rather than a seeming ethical or moral wrong. Here's a few examples.
        
        Under the DoJ interpretation, any child under the age of 13 who signs up for a Facebook account is a felon. Same with any parent that sets up an account for said child. If a website tells you not to view the source code for the website, and you do so, you are a felon. If you tell a little white lie in your profile on a dating site, such as claiming your hair color is natural, and not died, and the website says you aren't allowed to lie about your personal information, you are a felon.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Ben S (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        In that last sentence, died should be dyed.
        
        I wish I could edit my comments on here.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I suspected that's what you were referring to, which is why I worded my request the way I did. I think it is more than a stretch to call that an accusation. I also believe that you are trying so hard to show how Mike is... we'll say, "wrong-headed" that you are convinced the article is about "accusing the president" and not an exploration of whether the actions of two public individuals rose to the level of violating the CFAA.
        
        See the difference? For example, when you say, "Mike accused the president," that is an accusation of Mike. If you had said, "Did Mike accuse the president of violating the CFAA?" we would be able to start a reasoned discussion of how his approach to the topic was or was not an accusation.
        
        I don't know how else to explain it other than I think the majority of people reading the article understand that it is a discussion about how a meaningless public interaction could run afoul of the law. I believe a very small minority would interpret it the way you do, because to do so requires completely ignoring the context and intent of the forum in which it appears. I suppose you'll use the same thing (forum context and intent) to explain your view, but I would submit that maybe you should consider that it is your own personal context that is preventing you from understanding what is presented here.
        
        Personally, I walked away from the article thinking that it was a good example of how any of us could violate laws such as that by doing everyday things.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't know how else to explain it other than I think the majority of people reading the article understand that it is a discussion about how a meaningless public interaction could run afoul of the law.
        
        My point is that I don't see how Mike even came close to showing that what President Clinton could possibly, under any interpretation of the CFAA, be a federal crime. That's why it's complete FUD.
        
        Personally, I walked away from the article thinking that it was a good example of how any of us could violate laws such as that by doing everyday things.
        
        Then Mike's brainless, idiotic FUD worked as planned, at least with respect to you. Mike did not even begin to show how President Clinton could possibly have violated the CFAA. He just threw it out there as completely ridiculous and unsupported FUD. You guys need to learn how to be critical. I know this is TD, but please.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        And what you are failing to understand--and I guess we'll just agree to disagree is that the statement was collective not individual. Your entire argument is a STRAWMAN. He never shows how President Clinton violated the CFAA BECAUSE HE NEVER SAID HE DID. He asked, "Did Stephen Colbert and President Clinton violate the CFAA" SEE THE DIFFERENCE? COLLECTIVE versus individual.
        
        The rest of the article adequately shows how the COLLABORATIVE actions of those two individuals could be seen as a violation:
        a) Stephen Colbert for impersonating someone
        b) President Clinton for CONDONING IT.
        
        Also, I really shouldn't bother, but I'll say it anyway. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I can't think critically, but I understand you'll saying it because it's important for you to believe that no one else understands things except you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Your entire argument is a STRAWMAN. He never shows how President Clinton violated the CFAA BECAUSE HE NEVER SAID HE DID. He asked, "Did Stephen Colbert and President Clinton violate the CFAA" SEE THE DIFFERENCE? COLLECTIVE versus individual.
        
        Um, he suggested that they both may have violated the CFAA, ergo, each one would be individually guilty of it. There's no half-guilty. If you and I rob a bank together, we are both guilty of bank robbery. If you go in and rob the vault, and I merely drive the getaway car, I am guilty of bank robbery exactly the same as you. I really don't understand your point.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Ok, fine, although I believe there is a difference, I'll grant that you do not. My point still stands:
        a) Stephen Colbert for impersonating someone
        b) President Clinton for CONDONING IT.
        
        President Clinton had knowledge of the actions of Stephen Colbert (impersonating Clinton) via Twitter. And if the next thing you tell me is that having tacit knowledge of someone impersonating you along with your implied or explicit approval would not be something a prosecutor would use against you (if you were not Bill Clinton) or does not violate TOS then we have nothing more to say because you live in a world of complete fantasy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:49am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        President Clinton had knowledge of the actions of Stephen Colbert (impersonating Clinton) via Twitter. And if the next thing you tell me is that having tacit knowledge of someone impersonating you along with your implied or explicit approval would not be something a prosecutor would use against you (if you were not Bill Clinton) or does not violate TOS then we have nothing more to say because you live in a world of complete fantasy.
        
        I'll give you credit for at least trying to spell out an argument--that's far more effort that FUD-packing Mike could give. But let's start with Colbert. How is what he did a violation of the CFAA? Which section of the CFAA specifically are you looking at? What about the other elements, whatever they may be?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        18 USC � 1030 - Fraud and related activity in connection with computers
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Sigh. Which subsection? What are the elements? Walk us through the analysis.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:41am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Is it really that hard? You disagree, so you must have already done the analysis yourself.
        
        1030 (A),(4) or (5)(C).
        
        And then...
        (2) the term �protected computer� means a computer�
        [snip]; or
        (B) which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
        
        Knowingly is the important word, because that's where the TOS becomes important. If you agreed to the TOS, then you cannot claim you breached unknowingly.
        
        And, remember the important part here (the nuance that seems beyond you), is not whether they would be found guilty, but whether someone taking the same actions (as SC and BC) are at risk for PROSECUTION.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I'm starting to see the problem. You've all been mislead by Pirate Mike into thinking that merely lying about your age on a dating site or creating an account on Twitter, without more, is by itself a federal crime.
        
        Wow, Mike's sure misled you guys there. It's just sad that he wants you all to be so scared of the law. That's how he manipulates, I suppose. How truly sad and desperate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:13am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, and I can tell that subtlety and nuance isn't your strong suit. It's becoming clear to me that where you've gone wrong is that you cannot comprehend or find value in a discussion that doesn't include black or white statements or conclusions. I bet you were a hoot in college.
        
        What Mike is pointing out is that the law is being abused and has the potential for abuse by using both real and speculative examples. You can dismiss them by saying a) they are outliers or b) fantasy, but I think that would be foolish. I don't think it is speculative to assert that as the government gains more of an ability to observe, control, or punish us our individual risk of government intervention in our lives goes up.
        
        I for one, find those discussions very useful in forming my own opinions about these regulations. I'm sorry that you do not.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:17am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        No, Mike is pretending erroneously that there's any possibility that the president committed a crime. He's lying. He can't make the argument. He can't back it up. It's total bullshit meant to manipulate.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Except everything you just said is also bullshit. He made the argument, plenty of people think it is valid, so...
        
        AJ, you of all people know that legal matters aren't true or not true--its what you can get a court or a jury to accept. That's the issue here.
        
        So by definition he isn't lying. The question is whether or not what they did is an example of something two people could do and run a greater than normal risk of being prosecuted.
        
        And exactly how is what he's doing any different than you or anyone else? Are you saying your arguments are not meant to manipulate? Really?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Remember when #PrezBillyJeff was almost impeached for lying about a blowjob? Wait, what are we discussing? How certain elements of the US government can go to far?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 8:08am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        He was impeached. However, he was not convicted.
        
        Impeachment is just an indictment and conviction is brought about after trial in the Senate. It is only after the trial and conviction in the Senate that a president can be thrown out of office.
        
        So often, folks get impeachment confused with conviction. They are not the same thing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:40am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        OK I'm going to spell it out step by step. The only response I want from you is to tell me at which step you fail to follow the logic OK?
        
        Assumption:
        Under a DOJ interpretation the CFAA makes violation of ToS agreements a felony.
        
        1)Clinton and his buddy make an account and posted from it, notably being unclear on who was tweeting.
        
        2)Twitter expressly forbids this in its ToS (I already copied this for you).
        
        3)It then follows that, given our assumption, there is an argument to be made that Clinton is now a felon.
        
        Now the only other thing you need to get your head around is that asking a question does not constitute an allegation.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:48am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Assumption:
        Under a DOJ interpretation the CFAA makes violation of ToS agreements a felony.
        
        Let's start there. Where does the DOJ say that merely violating a TOS is a felony? What part of the CFAA are you referring to? What about the other elements of that section, whatever it may be?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:09am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Oddly enough I don't have a briefing from the DOJ about their interpretation and neither do you. That is why it's an assumption. Now play the game properly.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:16am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That would be the initial filing affidavit in the Swartz case.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I don't recall any of the counts there turning on a terms of service violation. They had him otherwise.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sneeje (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 6:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        The TOS part is a bit of a red herring--and you know it (you know, total bullshit meant to manipulate the thread).
        
        It is relevant only in determining intent and knowledge. That's what the courts have held and you know it.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:06am

I guess we'll have to keep our online activity secret then. An eye for an eye.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
  
  Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:37am
  
  Re:
  I'm sure most of you guys are already hiding your online activities, you know, for all your piracy and such.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    Why should I hide from my government? They should hide from us.
    
    Oh, wait...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hm, got owned on trying to bait Masnick into a pointless pissing contest now he's attacking everyone else...very classy. No wonder no one listens to you.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - AC Unknown, 10 Apr 2013 @ 9:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    What is with you and accusing everyone on this site of piracy?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:17pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      It's the only shred of tenuous legitimacy he's got.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DeP, 10 Apr 2013 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Sounds like deep-rooted paranoia to me. About time OOTB was put away, if you ask me.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
relghuar, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:32am

Of course...
"...supporting some amendments (and may release a manager's amendment), which marginally limits how the information it gets from companies can be used"

I can certainly believe they would support SOME such amendments. Here's one that comes to mind:

Government agencies receiving data from private companies shall never divulge any information about the data they received nor the companies they received it from to anyone in any form. FOIA requests are to be obstructed, and in worst case redacted ad absurdum until there contain no information at all. Judicial requests will be gagged under national security priviledge.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 3:45am

Hearings will be held in secret because there is something to hide. There is no other observation possible. Something is amiss and want to be on the need to know list since it affects me directly. Its the bare minimum any concerned citizen would expect from a democratic society/government.

Is this the start of an officially illegal government? So far its been mostly smoke and mirrors but tyranny is another animal altogether. If business or government have things to hide its bad for (good) business as the only thing business wants is monopoly and the only thing government bureaucracy wants is power. Basic history if one pays attention to such bludgeoning detail. (yes its that metaphorically obvious)

Hear we stand at the cusp of another dark ages where the citizenry have no freedoms and all commerce is monitored and purchasing restricted (monetary walled garden approach) to the local political favorites. Since its becoming fact that everyone is already guilty of several felonies at any given moment. Enforcement will most likely center around the individuals not voting in the prescribed way. Profiling (even though illegal) is still a normal fact in many places.

Cultural pruning has likely happened before. Remember the drug wars and a whole generation declared illegal for learning the most basic cultural fact that (Vietnam) war (Oops! Sorry. �Police Action�. Hahaha! Which is more doublespeak propaganda misdirection and a great excuse to not pay disability benefits.) is a bad thing?

Thats right Nixon was pissed because people were actually paying attention. The gall of them. His solution? Discredit them. Call them Druggies for smoking something healthier than tobacco. Thats right call them addled for using a social relaxant superior to alcohol with close to zero side effects. Did it matter that an entire generation was right/correct/intelligent shown by not being fooled by war propaganda? Nope. Lock um up. Destroy their lives.

An entire generation (around the 60-70s) that recognized Peace, Love, Understanding, Reciprocal Awareness (conscious of consciousness) and most unforgivable a high cultural IQ. (War is BAD.)

Yeah he (Nixon, the absolutely paranoid vindictive nut job) really got even against them too; He canceled the Space Moon Program (One of the few US programs that actually touched greatness and profitability.) and single handedly jumped (us) off the mountain peak of democracy with the drug war. (based on transportation law at the time)

Today we have imaginary Cybermen being declared the combatants which is so vapid an enemy it can only mean us, the citizenry/anyone. (spin the wheel of public opinion on who gets the dump truck load of felony shit.) The laws being formulated seem to be based on the abuses derived during the drug wars; Illegal confiscation of personal property, felony based convictions for the slightest of infractions and worse (its new) complete removal of judicial review for the fleecing of money. (copyright law)

Think this is to harsh? Ha! (It is an opinion.) No way.

Its on our watch/duty and the sleeping watchers will be the first victims. The orders for the Paul Revere's of the day; �One light by land, Two by sea and Three by congressional corporate takeover and Four for government bureaucratic collapse.� Is anyone awake to see the signals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 4:14am

Sure democracy never truly existed in most parts of the world that call themselves "democracies" but the US WERE closer to it than the rest. It's rather sad to see them running fast towards totalitarianism. Maybe the next D day will be at the American shorelines?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:20am

Wow ... there is that crazy juvenile poster again.

What a tool - lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:53am
  
  Re:
  AJ.
  
  He's a troll. You can't expect anything less or more from him.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:54am
    
    Re: Re:
    Seriously, for as much as he complains about how terrible a person Mike is, he doesn't do himself any favors by posting insults and acting like a child.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:22am

it
,,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 5:28am

cispa is a tool to get nra records
Obviously CISPA will be used to track the postings of gun enthusiasts and get NRA member lists so they can get their guns taken. ;-^
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Digitari, 10 Apr 2013 @ 7:01am
  
  Re: cispa is a tool to get nra records
  they don't need CISPA for that (yeah I know, it's INFOWARS; however)
  
  all you need is a child with a squirtgun (Allegedly)
  
  http://www.infowars.com/police-confiscate-mans-guns-over-sons-water-pistol-threat/
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 10 Apr 2013 @ 8:19am

To be fare the water pistol had some heavy water in it. Probably a molecule or two. I wouldn't mind the gun nuts getting this in there heads. CISPA would be dead with in hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JP Jones (profile), 10 Apr 2013 @ 11:05am

@AC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lori_Drew

Read it. I'll wait.

Now read the part where Lori Drew was convicted of a misdemoner offense of the CFAA for violating Myspace's ToS.

Sure, the conviction was overturned in appeals, but that was a case of the DoJ using a ToS violation to charge a citizen with a criminal breach of the CFAA.

He never said they'd be convicted. He said they could be tried, under the DoJ's (NOT the court's!) interpretation of the law. It has been done, and tried successfully enough to get a jury conviction, in the past.

So often, folks get impeachment confused with conviction. They are not the same thing.

While true, this is irrelevant to the discussion. Simply being charged with a crime that is taken to court can devastate the average citizen financially regardless if they win or lose. The government prosecutors get paid whether they win or lose. For all practical purposes if someone gets charged with a crime they may as well have been convicted of it.

That's the whole point and the whole problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Republic, 21 Apr 2013 @ 2:02am

With the dream2016.com there is hope. Other repubs cannot help. This country needs help now! 196 repub fools voted for it (CISPA) and only 29 against. 92 dems for it; 98 against. These are worthless traitors to this country and the wonderful law of it. Enough said. The lack of respect to their fellow man is astounding. They will get their very deserved punishment. If the excuse is made that these have no clue what they are doing, they should actually read the bill #1, or have no place serving people in the government #2. Don't worry about repubs seeking to destroy gun rights. They are going all in on the hopes of destroying the 4th as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]