Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing...

from the no-conflict,-no-interest dept

Thu, Apr 18th 2013 5:38am — Mike Masnick

It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers' wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It's somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.

It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can't even keep his own story straight about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement. Wrong and insulting.

Of course, as we've noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money. Mainly, money to big defense contractors aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive "solutions" to the cybersecurity "problem" -- a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as "a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world."

Hmm. Sounds like a company like that would benefit greatly to seeing a big ramp up in cybersecurity FUD around the globe, and, with it, big budgets by various government agencies to spend on such things. Indeed, just a few months ago, Rogers penned an article for Washington Life Magazine all about evil hackers trying to "steal information." In it, there's a line that might sound a wee-bit familiar, referring to the impression of hackers as being "the teenager in his or her parent's basement with bunny slippers and a Mountain Dew." Apparently, both of the Rogers really have a thing about teens in basements. The article is typical FUD, making statements with no proof, including repeating the NSA's ridiculous allegation that hackers have led to the "greatest transfer of wealth in American history." It's such a good line, except that it's completely untrue. The top US companies have recently admitted to absolutely no damage from such attacks. The article also lumps in "hacktivists" like Anonymous, as if they're a part of this grand conspiracy that needs new laws.

Tellingly, in the print version of Washington Life that this article appeared in, which you can see embedded below, you'll note that there's a side bar right next to her article about the importance of passing cybersecurity legislation in Congress. Guess what's not mentioned anywhere at all? The fact that Kristi Rogers, author of the fear-mongering article, happens to be married to Rep. Mike Rogers, the guy in charge of pushing through cybersecurity legislation. That sure seems like a rather key point, and a major conflict of interest that neither seemed interested in disclosing. Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she's now the "managing director of federal government affairs and public policies" at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she's apparently focused on "executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors." I'm sure having CISPA in place will suddenly create plenty of demand for such problem solving.

A few months ago, on one of his FUD-filled talks about why we need cybersecurity, Rogers claimed that it was all so scary that he literally couldn't sleep at night until CISPA was passed due to an "unusual source" threatening us. The whole statement seemed odd, until you realize that his statement came out at basically the same time as his wife's fear-mongering article about cybersecurity. I guess when your pillow talk is made up boogeyman stories about threats that don't actually exist, it might make it difficult to fall asleep.

Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard -- and we're not suggesting it wasn't -- this is exactly the kind of situation that Larry Lessig has referred to as soft corruption. It's not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less. At the very least, in discussing all of this stuff, when Mrs. Rogers is writing articles that help the push for CISPA, it seems only fair to disclose that she's married to the guy pushing for the bill. And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing. And yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.

Washington Life Article Cyberhygiene Oct 2012 2 (PDF)Washington Life Article Cyberhygiene Oct 2012 2 (Text)

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, conflicts of interest, cybersecurity, kristi rogers, lobbying, mike rogers

118 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 5:55am

Even the "hard facts" Rogers put up at twitter yesterday were easily debunked or questionable and open to interpretation at best. The questions that arose on twitter were never answered by rep Rogers...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Greevar (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:04am

But, but, but
This will create more jobs, right? If defense contractors get more money, surely that translates to more jobs, doesn't it? CISPA is a job creating bill! How could it be bad?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:17am

So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
It's okay as a tactic, IF you were consistent about its use and applied it to everyone when the facts are there, but here just means you're totally out of substance and have started attacking wives of people in Congress. Great idea, Mike. This too will help you gain influence in DC.

My opinion is that Rogers is just plain fascist: what you allege of his wife's (incremental, she's already getting heaps of money) interests in this probably don't affect him at all.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike fights CISPA without mentioning major data sources Google and Facebook.
02:17:14[c-290-5]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:20am

I'm shocked - not.
And they wonder why their approval rating is so low.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:24am

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Usually, when you turn up and attempt to counter someone's accusations of corruption, you do things like showing how the wife is actually the most philanthropic person alive and gives millions to starving children in Africa.
Blue, your method is to unzip your trousers, smack people in the face with the rubber tube that replaced your dick, and not show any counter-evidence at all.
And you wonder why we mock you all the time. I see you still haven't taken even the simplest steps of protecting your user-name, despite screaming about how we were "stealing" it multiple times. I see you're just like your copyright cartel paymasters: lazy and expecting everyone else to do the job of protecting what you deem important.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:27am

Hey, they're being honest - 'hackers have led to the "greatest transfer of wealth in American history."'.

Just not from people to hackers, but rather through 'Cyber-Security' contracts and lobbying.. :D.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
TDub, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:28am

Did I read this right?
"So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers..."

In that embedded pdf, the author of the article is a Kristi M. Rogers. Is that the same person? Am I reading this right? Please let me know if I am wrong...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:31am

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
So...to you, an Ad Hominem fallacy is OK as long as we are consistent?

Interesting...yet, unsurprising. Explains a lot about the way you act.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:34am

I am watching House of Cards on Netflix at the moment. Have seen just 2 episodes but it seems to have captured the corruption, double dealing and sleaze of DC perfectly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:39am

Re:
Time to start the war on hackers. I'm sure it will be as successful as all the other perpetual wars being "fought".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jasmine Charter, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:40am

OMG!
OMG! Corrupt politicians?! In Washington?! Who would have guessed?

/sarcasm off
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:45am

Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
I have to wonder why this charachter who gives ad homs, mocks and jibes others in his comments and then as soon as anyone does or says something that he perceives as a threat to himself because of a result of his comments he then posts comments for Mike to do something about it and this Mike is the one and same person that this character redicules the most with their comments. Don't expect someone to help you that you have pissed of and ridiculed beforehand is what i say because they are the ones that will help the least or not help at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:46am

there may well not be 'bags of money changing hands' but you can bet your arse that it will mean a substantial reward for both of them when the bill gets passed. nothing of this nature is ever done for free! and when it's the tax payers money that's being spent, no one gives a toss on the cost or who gets the money. this 'under the counter' dealing should have been declared before anything was done. i'm not saying it would have made any difference because Congress are in the game to get as much personal reward as possible and the old 'you scratch my back, i'll scratch yours' will be seriously in play. that doesn't detract from the position of secrecy and why Rogers is pushing so hard. it should have been made common knowledge before even the vote earlier!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:53am

Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Exactly. His is a personality that is predictable. I deliberately wrote that shotgun death threat in the EFF article in such a way that I knew he would respond with "OMG MIKE, Save me from this bloodthirsty lunatic!!!!"...when any person with two working brain cells would put two and two together and realize that
1) I'm from Ireland (having stated so many times) where, unlike the US, guns aren't exactly common (I'm 24 years old and have never seen a real one)
2) It would be next to impossible for me to identify blue.
Thus, my death threat was obviously not to be taken seriously.

Blue, it is your own actions that have reduced you to a laughable caricature of a human being. You literally have no-one to blame but yourself. You regularly contradict yourself and make ad-hom attacks (unlike this article, where Mike shows means, motive and opportunity for corruption) without any hard evidence whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:54am

Wish people in our goverment could see this bill for what it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
gorehound (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:03am

Rogers is a real POS.........sells out us Citizens for some Power and Money.POS Corrupted Man.
Very disgusted at this Government.soon the people will have had enough.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:06am

Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard -- and we're not suggesting it wasn't

Of course you are, Mike. Give me a break. So fucking dishonest.

And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing.

You never explained how she would benefit. If she's no longer with the company, how would she benefit? Talk about FUD.

nd yet, that doesn't seem to have happened... anywhere.

If Rogers had disclosed the conflict, where would he disclose it to? Do you even know? Or are you just spouting your usual anti-government, hated-fueled, moronic dipshit FUD?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:08am

Re:
Was just going to say the same thing. Life imitates art.

And HOC is definitely one of the best shows in many years. So incredibly good.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
spiralsoflite, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:09am

Re: Did I read this right?
I am also confused...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:10am

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Look who is criticizing ad homs! Our friendly loopy "ad-hom"_of_the_blue!

It's so overflowing with irony that I genuinely laughed!

My opinion is that Rogers is just plain fascist: what you allege of his wife's (incremental, she's already getting heaps of money) interests in this probably don't affect him at all.

Your opinion is as loopy and twisted as your comments here. First you are attacking him with the label fascist in the same manner you seem to be criticizing Mike in your first paragraph! That gotta be some serious psychiatric disorder. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming! And then you further stick your head into the psychiatric case study target by denying his wife affects him when it's crystal clear that this may be happening yes.

Just wow ootb. Go find professional help, you need it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Howard (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:14am

Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
You still haven't learned the lesson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Real Michael, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:14am

I suppose that it's just by sheer coincidence that at the same time they're trying to eradicate online privacy via CISPA, the government is building a huge 1 million sq. ft. facility located in Bluffdale, Utah to intercept, store and analyze huge amounts of data, including every transaction, phone call, satellite information, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:15am

Re:
Well, considering he doesn't specify whether he's talking about his fantasy north Korean hackers invading sophisticated systems in the US using their rudimentary OSes built on Assembly or real hackers meddling with stuff just for the pleasure of discovering problems or further developing and improving something... You may be right.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:16am

Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
I'm well aware I fed the troll this time but I found it disturbingly funny. I think we should help him. God knows what his mental disorder can do in reality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:16am

Re:
Does this mean that all my electronic hoes are worth $15m when this bill passes?

AWESOME!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:17am

Re:
I wouldn't call them Persons of Stature...oh wait!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:19am

Re:
She doesn't have to benefit financially or in some overt way at all. For all we know, she could honest
ly believe in what she's preaching, that hackers will cause the end of the world unless CISPA passes.
What Mike is discussing here is the "soft corruption", the appearance of corruption, the "revolving doors" between industry, politics, and lobbying groups.

I'm going to spell it out as simply as possible, so that you can have NO excuse for not understanding.
Woman A works for a company that stands to gain financially if the government passes legislation that leads to more contracts with companies like the one she works in. That gives her a motive to want legislation like this passed.
Her means is to quit her job (I guess to ostensibly avoid any appearance of conflict of interest) and joins a lobbying group. Stories of favours being traded, of promises of jobs and people going from industry to politics to lobbyist to industry to politics to lobbyist are all too common.
Her opportunity just happens to come in the form of her HUSBAND, the guy pushing this bill. Even if she honestly believes in the bill, that it will save the world, and even if he honestly believes in the bill, the facts are that there is at the least the appearance of corruption going on.

So go on. Which is more likely? That this lady out of the goodness of her heart just happened to lobby for legislation that will aid her friends in a certain industry financially and her husband just happened to be the politician pushing for it?
Or that there is corruption going on, which is all too common on Capitol Hill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:19am

Silly Mike, you should know that blatant conflicts of interests by politicians are only a story when there ISN'T such a conflict.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Howard (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:23am

Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
You still haven't learned the lesson
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:24am

Re: Re:
I still don't see it. What is her current conflict of interest? Does Mike even know where Rogers would report one if there actually was one? Did he check there (and is it even public information)? This article is pure FUD. Nothing is beneath Mike Masnick, super FUD-packer extraordinaire. Accuses politicians of ethics violations (and ex-President's of federal crimes) without doing even the most basic research or journalism. Total fucking joke. Total fucking idiot.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Old Man in The Sea, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:32am

First question to ask of Jolly "Mike" Rogers
Do you have a 14 year old in the basement?

Second question to ask is

Were you a 14 year old in the basement?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:32am

Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:35am

Re: Re:
Okay, that was a fat-finger there.

I was gonna cynically ask if maybe the people in government could see the bill for what it is and just be OK with it. They know they'll get theirs, too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:36am

Re: Re: Re:
"I still don't see it" (after you laying it out for me step by step, I'm too stupid and or willfully blind to see anything)
"What is her current conflict of interest?" (Despite being told about revolving doors and the fact her husband is the one pushing for this bill...the article is more about his appearance of a conflict of interest)
As for where Rogers would report it to? I dunno...his peers? He could stand up in the House and say "Oh by the way, I've gotta disclose the fact my wife is a lobbyist for an industry she recently worked for that would benefit greatly if this bill I'm pushing passes" with cameras in his face and reporters holding a million microphones in front of him.

Do you even know the meaning of FUD? FUD is when something lacks substance. This article DOESN'T. Mike has gone to some lengths to lay it out. It's not like anything here is a lie. So go on. Where's the FUD? Is Rogers married? Was that a lie? Did his wife actually work for an industry that will benefit from this bill?

Ya know what this reminds me of? A certain former French president introduced a tax on blank media, and a portion of that tax would go to artists. I suppose the fact his wife was a professional singer signed to a record label was just a big coincidence wasn't it? It's very similar to what's happened here. A wife stands to benefit financially from legislation, whether overtly now or covertly later (it is very likely that Mrs. Rogers has been promised a job back in the same industry later, with a much higher paycheck) if her husband ensures legislation gets passed and signed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Akari Mizunashi (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:37am

Aren't most bills passed into laws these days financially benefiting someone else?

It's par for the course. Hell, even when this country was facing an economic crisis, thanks to the housing market crash, an emergent "bailout" couldn't get passed unless it was including benefits to make someone else rich.

I hate our government. I really, really hate our government.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:38am

Re: Re:
Because she believes the law is good doesn't make it good. That's why the Government should be laic. Considering the amount of opposition and all the analysis that pointed out the privacy concerns this wouldn't be as bad if he pushed for amendments to patch the flaws pointed out.

Even if we disregard financial gains and assume goodwill it's the same as letting the Pope push for bills that ban condoms just because the Church frowns on them along with their billion catholics.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:38am

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers' wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a "security" defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department.

Wait. She has a conflict of interest because her former employer may benefit from the passage of CISPA?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:43am

Re:
Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she's now the "managing director of federal government affairs and public policies" at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she's apparently focused on "executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors."

Also, look for LLC on http://www.manatt.com/Clients.aspx

You'll be surprised ;)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josef Anvil (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:44am

Re:
"It's not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less."

"the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a 'security' defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department."

Reconcile the two quotes please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:46am

Re: Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Oh yeah. Blue - one honest question. In today's Author's Guild article, you responded with a link to a discussion you had with Mike two years ago, in 2011. Okay...how were you able to scrounge up that link?
I mean...how? What method did you use to determine where a discussion you had with Mike was, on what article and when? You don't have a signed in account here, so it's not as simple as going to that and going backwards through your comments to find that article.

No, the only method I can think of is that you are neurotic enough that anytime Mike actually does respond to you...you bookmark that page or make some sort of note of it. I can see you at the computer, constantly typing away and making your useless comments and then...bam! You get a response, shriek in rage, excitement and joy (because honestly, I can picture feeling all three emotions at once), jumping out of your seat, grabbing a notebook and pen and scribbling furiously at it. In fact, this is what I picture you to be (just mute the audio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv4E9175EOY

So tell me...how did you come up with that link, without looking like Mikami in that video?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:52am

Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 18th, 2013 @ 7:06am
I can practically see the Random Argument Generator at work here.

[quote]
[Dismissal x3]
[quote]
[Error 404: could not find "common knowledge"][Dismissal]
[quote]
[Question][Assumption that author cannot answer said question][Dismissal]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:52am

Re:
Revolving door. Defense contractors as a whole would benefit from this bill. So she quits one particular company, joins a lobbyist group, gets her husband to push for the bill, then gets a job in another defense contractor with a much higher paycheck. Similar situations have happened before. It doesn't take a genius to think of this scenario.
Or maybe the job will go to the husband.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:55am

Re: Re:
Its not bags of money, its truckloads.

Hope that helps.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:57am

Re:
they can, and they like it!

Put yourself in their position. Wouldn't you steer a few million to yourself if you could? of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 18 Apr 2013 @ 7:59am

Re:
disclosure is fairly common. There are documented procedures.

Executives are allowed some fraud, but the have to disclose it FIRST. Then its ok.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jackn, 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:01am

Re:
yes, you've got it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:02am

Re:
Aren't you one of the fools who whine like little babies about conflict of interest every time Mike posts something positive about Google because he once helped do something with them? Yet, here we have a direct, immediate conflict of interest and it should be ignored because you're too dumb to work out disclosure methods? I do like the way you clearly advertise your hypocrisy.

"You never explained how she would benefit"

She was the former CEO and president of a company that may stand to benefit greatly if her husband's plan is passed. There's a possibility that her package included some form of share or remaining connection to the company, or that she has close friends and colleagues who will thank her for their profit later on.

Even if she has managed to sever all ties and no longer has any connection, that has only happened very recently - the legislation was introduced 18 months ago. Even if no conflict of interest currently exists, it damn well did exist for over a year from the time the bill was introduced to the time she left Aegis. Her jumping ship before the bill stands to pass does not remove the conflict that was happening while she was still employed there.

Your dishonesty is as transparent as ever.

"FUD"

You're the expert, although you still seem hazy about what it really means.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Morality124 (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:03am

Re: Did I read this right?
Yes she is. Kristi Clemens or Kristi M. Clemens was her original name, until she married Mike Rogers, after which she became Kristi Rogers, fullname Kristi M. Rogers, and sometimes Kristi Clemens-Rogers/Kristi Clemens Rogers. Also see here.

Hope that clears things up. :)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
techflaws (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:15am

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Ooh, the irony!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter W, 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:25am

outsider who thinks he is an insider
As a person who has been working in Cyber Security (Formerly IA, IS, IT etc) for 10 years as a contractor and now is a government (DoD) employee. I can tell you your assertions of the boogeyman are uninformed.
The DoD systems I work daily to protect get pummelled by intrusion attempt (foreign and domestic).
My friends in the private sector tell me of intrusions that have stolen everything from customer lists to plans for upcoming product releases. But they have been told not to divulge these intrusions due to stock market worries.
For a person who has a company that claims to be about insight, I would recommend speaking from facts not opinions in regards to the need for cyber security.
Your opinions of the Senator and his wives possible benefits may be true. But your assertions that the need for improved cyber security are not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:34am

Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
First of all, not divulging those things is illegal.

Secondly, alot of these "intrusions" are human error, weak security systems, or just plain unsecured systems, or a leak from within rather than without.

All I see is bleating for increased cyber security to protect from those minor threats. Or perhaps the omnipresent DDOS attack, which will be launched by Anonymous in 20xx, the year of megaman, which will take out all our security grids.

And thirdly, these things are obviously being dealt with NOW, it is not the job of the government to make things EASIER for itself when it comes to violating peoples rights. Those rights are supposed to be difficult to get past for a reason, because it is part of fundamental liberties. Cybersecurity has nothing to do with hoovering up personal information, and alot of it could be done with the advent of just "implementing basic security protocols".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:38am

Re:
So you like this politician and feel he is not doing something dishonest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:42am

Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Umm...who and what exactly are you criticizing?
Are you criticizing Mike for the "boogeyman"? If so, he's the one talking about the politicians who are screaming about a boogeyman.
Also, what does your last sentence mean? The need for improved security? Surely, basic steps at protecting digital information can be used, all without needing legislation. It's not like people are leaving their front doors unlocked, thieves are strolling in taking what they will and then magically a new law passes that somehow by virtue of its existence stops all of this...when all you have to do is take basic steps to protect yourself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:44am

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
You know all about fascists, seeing as you've praised the penultimate fascist for his fascism before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:46am

Re:
Wait. She has a conflict of interest because her former employer may benefit from the passage of CISPA?

Exactly. Dipshit FUD Boy never cites for us the rule on disclosures of conflicts of interests, and he never explains how her prior employment creates such a conflict. Nor does he even bother to explain how he determined that this conflict, if there even was one, wasn't disclosed. This is just a stupid, angry attempt to discredit a sitting Representative based on nothing but FUD and idiocy. Mike Masnick has struck again. What a fucking idiot. And of course he won't defend any of this in the comments. He's too busy writing his next brain-dead hitpiece for his idiot followers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 8:58am

Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
If Hitler is the penultimate fascist...who's the ultimate? Just wondering...
And for what it's worth...I've said things similar before. Hitler did restore the German economy where all the other post WW1 German governments had failed...if you ignore the fact he did so through a mixture of slave labour and removal of worker's rights and destruction of trade unions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jeff (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:02am

Re: Re:
Sounds like somebody has a serious case of the frownies!

Please use this doll and tell us where the mean man touched you...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:04am

Re: Re:
"Exactly. Dipshit FUD Boy never cites for us the rule on disclosures of conflicts of interests, and he never explains how her prior employment creates such a conflict."

Because he doesn't need to. Because, unlike you and the rest of your ilk, his readers are intelligent and educated, and able to figure out what he's left out.
And what do you mean by "wasn't disclosed"? Did Rogers in fact stand up in the House and say "By the way, my wife is a lobbyist who has friends in the industry who will gain financially to the tune of BILLIONS, with a B, if this legislation passes...and yes, she is withholding sex from me unless I do everything in my power to get this passed". If he did disclose, provide proof that Mike is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:06am

Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
So, you used to be one of those "cybersecurity" contractors, eh? What was it like getting paid millions to install Norton Antivirus on a few computers? Must've been easy living.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chosen Reject (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:12am

Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
I consider Benito Mussolini to be the ultimate fascist, but only because he was one of the first, and one of the founders of the fascist movement. Hitler (or maybe someone else) may have been more fascist, but I haven't bothered myself to come up with a Who's Who of fascists.

Yeah, Hitler did get the German economy going, but so what? If I had a choice of living under Hitler or the Germany before Hitler, I'd choose the latter. Freedom means a lot more to me than the economy. Blue's praise of Hitler just shows to me he isn't a populist that cares for the people. That's all a charade he puts on. He claims he's for the little guy, against big corporations, etc, but he's for government granted monopolies and knocks Mike any time Mike talks about government corruption or the like.

Like "The Prince", or Hitler, Blue like his subtle form of evil. Pretend to be for the people, when you really just want to rule over them completely.

Note: I'm not accusing Blue of supporting Holocaust Hitler or warmongering Hitler. I'm pointing out that blue praises fascist Hitler.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:14am

Re: Re:
Bags of money changing hands implies the direction of the money flow is into the hands of legislators. Securing a $10B contract is money flowing into the hands of industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:27am

Re: Re:
It's art imitating life. This isn't exactly a new thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:39am

Re: Re: Re:
If you think the person running this website is a total fucking idiot, the why the hell are you here every day reading it? That sounds like even bigger idiocy to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
limbodog, 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:39am

Anyone willing to file a complaint with the Ethics committee?
http://oce.house.gov/public-input.html

I'd be willing to do it, but I feel like whoever does so should be more knowledgeable about this than I.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
wec, 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:39am

So, if she is a lobbyist, who does she lobby?. Probably her husband and his cohorts. Isn't that a conflict of interest or the use on undue influence. Also, does her paycheck have anything to with the bills she lobbies for and they get enacted?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Fenderson (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:40am

Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Fascism cannot persist without the consent of the people, and so it always provides some benefit to the people so that they'll play along. That doesn't justify fascism or make it a good thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Re:
IMO, if there is a large conflict of interest, the proper thing to do is not to "report" it somewhere, but simply to stay away from the bill. If the conflict is large enough, you should abstain from even voting on it. You certainly don't become the driving force behind it.

Heck, the Supreme Court will let a decision go 4-4 rather than have a member with a conflict cast a vote. But then, the Court actually cares about the appearance of conflicts of interest. Congress, apparently, does not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:49am

Re: Re: Re:
Because he doesn't need to. Because, unlike you and the rest of your ilk, his readers are intelligent and educated, and able to figure out what he's left out.

So smart people just throw out FUD about a sitting Congressman violating the House Ethics Rules without actually presenting evidence that a violation occurred? LOL!

And what do you mean by "wasn't disclosed"?

There are procedures for disclosing conflicts of interest, dipshit. I thought you were "intelligent and educated"?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:59am

Re:
It's actually based on a British series of the same name, which deals with those themes, IIRC, in the mid-70s.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 10:04am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know you're in trouble when your Supreme Court believes far more in your nation's ideal than its politicians.

But then what's new?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 10:04am

Re: Re:
"He's too busy writing his next brain-dead hitpiece for his idiot followers."

A group of which you are a part of, apparently:

You follow (stalk, actually) him, and you are an idiot. QED.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 10:17am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Nor does he even bother to explain how he determined that this conflict, if there even was one, wasn't disclosed."

You basically said that Mike lied when he said that the conflict of interest wasn't disclosed. If it was, as you are implying, then provide some proof. Otherwise your claims lack merit and are meaningless.
Also, we don't need to be told about the exact rule for disclosing conflicts of interest whenever someone reports that there potentially could be one. So I don't know why you are harping on about Mike not mentioning the precise rules and procedures. Mike doesn't need to. For the purposes of his article, he just needs to say "I've got Politician A here, he's the main guy behind Legislation B, he's married to Woman C who just so happened to work for Industry D that will make a ton of money if Legislation B passes". Are the rules as simple as standing up in the house and going "My wife is a lobbyist lobbying for this bill, I can't vote or introduce this bill or do anything, cause then there's the appearance at the very least of a conflict of interest".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike Masnick (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 10:24am

Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
As a person who has been working in Cyber Security (Formerly IA, IS, IT etc) for 10 years as a contractor and now is a government (DoD) employee. I can tell you your assertions of the boogeyman are uninformed.
The DoD systems I work daily to protect get pummelled by intrusion attempt (foreign and domestic).

I don't deny that there are intrusion attempts, or that they're going on all the time. I question how *serious* those attempts are or how much damage they could actually do. To date, they have not done that much damage.

My friends in the private sector tell me of intrusions that have stolen everything from customer lists to plans for upcoming product releases. But they have been told not to divulge these intrusions due to stock market worries.

Again there is little to no evidence to support this, and companies have reported no serious losses. If this was as horrible as you claim, we'd see some impact from it.

Furthermore, at no point has anyone explained how this new legislation will actually help to stop attacks or why the information sharing was not currently allowed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GrahamMan (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 10:32am

Re:
See it for what it is? You mean a pay day for them if they vote for it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 10:48am

Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Hey Mikey,

Please explain how his wife has a current conflict of interest because of her former job. Or can you not even back up this stupid assertion?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rikuo (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 10:55am

Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Hi dumbass. How many times do I have to comment with the words "revolving door" or do you willfully ignore those comments? Revolving doors are a reality in US politics. There are people who have gone from politician to a job as a lobbyist pushing for a bill, to then working for an industry that benefits from that bill.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 11:12am

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
"...you're totally out of substance and have started attacking wives of people in Congress..."

...who are working for companies directly profiting from their husbands' work, boy.
OotB is proof positive that there should be an intelligence test for posting to blogs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 11:33am

Interpretation....
Based on this information, I would interpret his statement, "..."unusual source" threatening us..." to be:

"..."My Wife" threatening me..." if I don't get this passed....

Who in their right mind wants to piss off their wife? What's billions of wasted dollars in vaporware threats compared to an angry wife?

Just saying....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 11:43am

Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Yes. I understand the generalized FUD about "revolving doors." You and Mike have yet to demonstrate (1) that Rogers had a conflict of interest, (2) that Rogers had a duty to disclose it, and (3) that Rogers failed to disclose it. Let me know when you've got more than FUD and can actually demonstrate that he did anything wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 11:51am

Re:
No they don't. They have money and power. The fuck do they care?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 12:04pm

If the Congressman had any other job this would be a breach of ethics. However, he's a Congressman and they have no ethics...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 12:20pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
If you bothered to read and understand the article, you would have realized that:
1) At the very least there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, as the article was explicit in stating.
2) Mr. Rogers, as a member of Congress, is a public servant and his job is to work for the public interest. Wether or not there is a law or rule or procedure codified for this exact situation, there is an ethical duty for Mr. Rogers to disclose to the public he serves of the potential of a conflict of interest.
3) He did not disclose it to the public he represents.

Right and wrong are ethical concepts and not directly accounted for in all laws. He may not have done anything illegal, but what he has done is ethically wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
KG, 18 Apr 2013 @ 12:23pm

A-Holes
Why the hell are these people still in office? If ANYONE else pulled crap like this, they'd not only be FIRED but most likely facing fraud charges! This country is completely messed up beyond hope of repair. Sickening.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 12:31pm

Re:
Not all of us are that bad. Just the old farts in the office positions.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
toolbag, 18 Apr 2013 @ 1:25pm

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Get outta her Mike Rogers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
hp, 18 Apr 2013 @ 1:47pm

trust less?
"Trust less" is the understatement of the year.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bearfoot, 18 Apr 2013 @ 3:07pm

Re: Re:
Are you aware that "Most hackers" are people who guess common passwords or otherwise trick people into giving up passwords? It doesn't take THAT much computer power to steal a unguarded laptop now does it?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Chuck Wiley, 18 Apr 2013 @ 3:30pm

CISPA
Let's see how many Senators who voted down the background check legislation for gun purchases yesterday vote for CISPA. There's no don't that there will be more than a handful and hopefully the media will call them out on their hypocrisy.

I can't help but believe if this CISPA bill had the word gun or arms associated with it, it never would have even reached the floor of the House for a vote, let alone been passed.

Such typical, two-faced responses from House members who fear what the government would do with a database of information on gun owners, but will gleefully approve any limitations on privacy as it relates to other spheres, such as the Internet. All in the name of the War on Terror (despite the fact that guns have been used to terrorize, and kill, more Americans than terrorists ever have or will).

Why am I not surprised by their duplicity, hypocrisy and shameless, obsequious kowtowing to the lobbying industry (both for guns and the military-industrial complex) in this country?

What a joke Congress is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Busing raping, 18 Apr 2013 @ 4:09pm

In basement raping
Mike Rogers must be too busy to notice all this. He's probably in the basement raping teenagers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 4:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
This assumes that the article is "all" fact. The contention is that it isn't, so the answers are not in the article.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 4:42pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
And yet the article lays out his citations (that would be the blue linking text?) and logical process through the issue. Can you offer up anything at all that refutes the information that is being presented? Citations will be needed to support your argument, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
samsays (profile), 18 Apr 2013 @ 4:49pm

Link
Now look into the link between Aegis and Craft international via Tim Spicer, founder of Aegis, and Mark Tim Spicer, Co-Founder of Craft International.

Craft International was providing "security" at the Boston bombing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 5:00pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Simple logic requires no citations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rose McDonald, 18 Apr 2013 @ 5:46pm

Mike Rogers' wife and CISPA
Gee, a Republican; what a surprise!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 5:59pm

Re: Re:
They had this wet dream about taking back 'merica and having a puppet in the white house, they are still in denial.

The only reason they still hold the house is due to gerrymandering, and yet they think it was not the message or their platform, but the way their message was conveyed.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:03pm

oh but they're working for us, remember? to heck with the republicans, democrats, libs, all of them. to heck with the whole government. I can't believe there are people out there who just can't figure it out. I know there are people here that have figured it out but the majority of the human race is so helpless and brainless that it makes me sick
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cowards Anonymous, 18 Apr 2013 @ 6:14pm

Mr. Roger's Neighborhood
Mr. Rogers neighborhood sounds like a very scary place. Hackers, and 14 year olds, and basements. Oh my!

It's a frightening day in the neighborhood,
A 14 year old's hacking my neighborhood,
Won't you spy on my neighbor.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:28pm

Our wonderful, honest government at work. When our we going to vote these crooks out?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ed C., 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:41pm

Cyber hygiene?
Mrs Rogers' article included at the end is rather laughable. The attacks that supposedly cost so much money were mainly caused by poor security. Of course, rather than insuring that their systems and property worth billions is properly secured, such as not running card transactions from POS terminals over open wifi networks, they would rather have the government hunt down and prosecute the intruders at the tax payers expense.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Incognito, 18 Apr 2013 @ 9:59pm

Dunno
Still, I don't get it. How CISPA will help them against hackers?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RickZ, 19 Apr 2013 @ 12:45am

Criminal
While the country continues it's economic melt down and ongoing craziness Congress is hard at work wasting our tax dollars, stealing and colluding with corporations and destroying any last remnant of our privacy. Sounds like just another day at the office. I hope they are called out and the media puts this in the headline news but with all the other things going on this will probably be ignored. Any videos made should include this information. Contact all the news department and hopefully his hometown picks up the story. Front Page news for his state newspapers would look great. Mr & Mrs Rogers this weeks corporwhores. While we all just get by they waste time with self-serving bills. Appalling! Is there not one honorable Congress member left?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ninja (profile), 19 Apr 2013 @ 4:21am

Re: Re: Re:
Those are not hackers. They just know how to explore human stupidity. For me (NOT AN OFFICIAL DEFINITION, this is my opinion)a hacker is that guy with a sheer knowledge of computers (and there are hackers focused on different things). For instance there are those that focus on finding security holes, those who trample with software to make it more useful (or remove DRM) or even those who meddle with hardware directly and things like that. There are different words that express these different types but I shamelessly lump them together in the same word. Some hackers use their awesome skills for not so good actions, unfortunately.

But the word hacker by itself is not inherently good or bad. It just describes a skilled person when dealing with electronics in general. Although you could consider turning a small truck into a jeep some sort of mechanical hacking or something. It all depends on how loosely you use the word heh
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Apr 2013 @ 4:58am

This makes me want to watch House of Cards again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DeP, 19 Apr 2013 @ 11:49am

Re: Re:
Oh dear. The rants ARE getting more and more extreme. Seems he's REALLY throwing the toys out of the baby buggy now. The mentality also appears to be consistent with that sort of age. Suspect it's because he's getting absolutely nowhere with his inane, insane and completely irrelevant comments and getting flagged at the first opportunity as a born trouble-maker. OOTB, why do you even bother? It's becoming patently obvious that you don't have an original thought in your rattly old brain and don't really have a life.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cynic, 19 Apr 2013 @ 5:44pm

these muthafuckas are gonna do whatever they want no matter what we have to say about it, and then we will turn around and vote em in again the next time to get some more of our money. You watch.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Apr 2013 @ 3:16am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider
Humor us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Republic, 21 Apr 2013 @ 1:49am

See the dream2016.com for the candidate for repubs.
196 repubs 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. See the dream instead.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Republic, 21 Apr 2013 @ 1:52am

Check out dream2016.com as the solution for the republican party.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
kleighx, 21 Apr 2013 @ 7:22am

REAL LIFE HOUSE OF CARDS
Well this is not surprising at all!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Papa Z, 22 Apr 2013 @ 6:01am

Re:
And whose government do you really, really love?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Apr 2013 @ 6:42pm

Herr Rogers won his position by disenfranchising college students. Take a look at his history, he won his seat by 111 votes, after pushing legislation that denied college students the right to vote in his district. He is the real life Kevin Spacey character from House of Cards.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
SenselessNoise, 23 Apr 2013 @ 3:21pm

18 USC � 208
Can we charge Mike Rogers with 18 USC � 208 - Acts affecting a personal financial interest?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ultimation, 24 Apr 2013 @ 8:38pm

Re: Did I read this right?
"Kristi Clemens Rogers" probably means her maiden name was Clemens. So yeah its the same person.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
WysiWyg (profile), 25 Apr 2013 @ 2:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.
Actually, all Hitler proved was that it's easy to increase the standard of living for some if you do it by stealing everything of value from someone else, and then use them as slaves. Who would have thought huh?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
FFS, 26 Apr 2013 @ 1:07pm

Re: Re:
Are you defending ours? Cause ours is shit. And pretty much every country's is. No one's doing it completely right but the simple things are being done wrong here in America, supposedly the greatest nation in the world can't handle the most basic principles that the country is supposed to be founded on. Liberty? Slowly being drained by bills. Life? They seem to be able to end it if you piss them off or fuck up their payments. Pursuit of Happiness? Nope, unless your happiness is a consumerist pop-culture obsessed one you probably won't find it here unless you're one of the people abusing the rest of society.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas, 6 Jun 2013 @ 4:13pm

You called it early Mike Masnick !!!
It is now June 6th, 2013 and Mike Roger's just tweeted "Announcing The Cyber Economic Espionage Accountability Act with @SenRonJohnson and @RepTimRyan pic.twitter.com/WNRRN8dKHJ

Looks like Mike Rogers is again jumping on the evil hackers trying to "steal information bandwagon you talked about in your article.

Great way to foresee the future and soft corruption in action again.

I stumbled on this article just today and could not believe how truthful it is now after Mike Rogers latest tweet. Keep up the great writing.
Tom
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Thomas (profile), 7 Jul 2013 @ 2:17pm

Most branches..
of the U.S. government completely ignore conflict-of-interest rules. Congress ignores it, the SCOTUS ignores it, the FCC ignores it. Nowdays they talk about "conflict-of-interest" instead of plain old bribery.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rich Fiscus (profile), 30 Jul 2013 @ 5:18pm

In the absence of any official statement from Mike Rogers explaining his position with respect to potentially defamatory allegations by members of his staff against Mike Masnick it seems only fair to offer an explanation for the unwashed masses of ignorant halfwits populating the Internet. After years spent closely observing the species Vitulamen Sanguinem Parasitus, more commonly known as the garden variety politician, I have become something of an expert on their highly idiosyncratic communication style.

Based on my years of study I am confident what appears at first to be an organized campaign of borderline defamatory rumor mongering is, in fact, a completely unintentional misunderstanding. This is much more common than you might suspect due to the difficulty in translating from that species' significantly more nuanced and sophisticated communication into the crude and limited vocabulary used by us ordinary folk.

It is impossible for me to definitively identify the subtleties of Mike Rogers' staffers, not having witnessed the exchange personally. I can, however, provide some insight about how the benign behavior of these elegant creatures is often misunderstood by ordinary people. In the spirit of furthering relations between our two species I will endeavor to do so. I will also attempt to replicate the delicate nuance of their language in the hope increased exposure to it will increase your understanding.

Let's start with the alleged comments by Representative Rogers' staffers to a Michigan reporter insinuating, but likely falling just short of actually accusing, Mike Masnick of defamation. There are many ways to characterize his staffers' actions. In some places it would be called innuendo, half truth, or perhaps even lying. A blogger with a legal background and significant experience in First Amendment defense, Ken White at Popehat for example, might refer to it as censorious thuggery. Such a person might even go so far to call it douchebaggery. On this very thread it has been described as corruption.

On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.

If you go back to the original Techdirt pieces which led to this reaction you will notice a similar communications gap. On July 26 Mike characterized Mike Rogers' selective and out of context quotes about Supreme Court precedents misleading.

On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.

A day earlier Mike called out Representative Rogers for conflating different NSA programs to paint a rosy picture which is entirely and categorically false.

Once again, on Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday. I could go on but in every case the comparison would ultimately be the same.

You might agree with me that Mike Rogers, purely for personal gain, blindly supports government programs which are clearly and blatantly unconstitutional. Like me you might suggest Mike Rogers is a typical crony capitalist, irreversibly corrupted by the lure of power, prestige, and a likely future of wealth and comfort lobbying for the equally corrupt corporations he has thrown his support behind. In fact you may believe, as I do, that his public statements alone easily meet the Constitutional criteria for impeachment and his protestations to the contrary amount to nothing more than a claim of first degree butthurt.

Try to remember, though, that he truly does not understand any of that. In Mister Rogers' Neighborhood it's just Tuesday.
[ link to this | view in thread ]