The context here is that an AC claimed that a bill trying to be passed (but wasn't!), would not expand the law to include embedding videos as a public performance, while Mike argued that the bill in question did in fact allow embeds to be considered public performances.
Behold my link to an infringing video! And since Mike was kind enough to provide a place for me to put a link to point you to a video that was uploaded by someone other than me, MIKE IS OBVIOUSLY EQUALLY TO BLAME FOR THIS ATROCIOUS THEFT!
I've gotta ask, was there ever such a bill (ANY bill, not just cyber-security) that was thoroughly researched and gave the government only necessary power that couldn't be abused?
another "sad but true" button moment... unfortunately it happens all too often. Fortunately, as proven by SOPA, the public can actually have an effect on lawmaking. And, hopefully, in the future we will be able to stand up and be heard over the giant lobbying organizations that buy out politicians.
in order to prevent these corporations from interfering with such things it would require us to change the rules and laws that govern the government, the problem is that these corporations are the ones paying the politicians who create and rewrite laws, and the corporations don't want that to change.
This bill will allow the government and private sector security people the ability to gather information from VPN's on their users if the government deems the information a "cyber threat". So you'd not only need to get a VPN, but a VPN from out of country, such as Sweden.
Hmmm, I like you Psyphurr, unlike most people who come into the comments section with a differing point of view, you presented your opinion in a clear and concise manner without resorting to ad hominems or declaring our arguments wrong without any support.
I don't know only the basics of online security, so I'm not the best person to ask on whether or not a cyber-security bill is really needed. But, if something must be done, I would rather run the risk of some sort of cyber threat, then rush a bill that may or may not prove useful, or may in fact be used for entirely different purposes that I do not support. I have seen too many bills where the backers insist the bill will "only" be used a certain way, in order to leave out measures to protect against misuse, and then have the bill used in the exact way the backers insisted it wouldn't. Some fine examples include the Pro-IP act, Canada's failed "Protecting children from Internet Predators Act" that was really an online surveillance bill whose only mention of Child Porn was in its name, and who could forget the Patriot Act.
If there is to be a Cyber-Security bill passed that may affect me, I want that bill to be as specific as possible, thoroughly researched, and to give only as much power as necessary to the government to reduce the collateral from misuses that will inevitably happen.
My problem with this particular bill, CISPA, is its broad undefined wording, how it overrides any state legislation on the matter, the exemption from FOIA, and the thought of worrying my private data being shared without my knowing not only by hackers but by the government as well.
kind of a weird example I know, but this is my experience as a student.
The same student who is complimented by his teacher for getting an A in Calculus, could then right after be berated by his Physics teacher for failing. Just because you are lauded in one field of study, doesn't mean you should gain recognition in others.
It's quite simple really, all you have to do is take any data involving copyright, such as the affects of piracy on job loss or the cost of one infringing copy, and then add random multipliers until it looks big enough to actually support your case, whatever it may be at the time.
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Re: The free speech angle
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Re:
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
How many points do I receive?!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERW3fE1kJ3o
On the post: MPAA Just Won't Quit: Jumps Into Legal Dispute To Argue Links & Embeds Are Infringing
Re: Pitiful? No, it's a nuanced point.
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re:
LOL! I stole (copied) it! :D
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Agree to Disagree
another "sad but true" button moment... unfortunately it happens all too often. Fortunately, as proven by SOPA, the public can actually have an effect on lawmaking. And, hopefully, in the future we will be able to stand up and be heard over the giant lobbying organizations that buy out politicians.
On the post: Historic Archive Of Websites From The January 18th SOPA Blackout
Re:
On the post: Feds Tried To Destroy All Evidence Of Memo Saying They Were Committing War Crimes With Torture
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there such at thing?
On the post: Feds Tried To Destroy All Evidence Of Memo Saying They Were Committing War Crimes With Torture
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re: Re: They are trying to wear us down
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re:
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re: Revolution is Imminent
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re: Re: Re: Agree to Disagree
I don't know only the basics of online security, so I'm not the best person to ask on whether or not a cyber-security bill is really needed. But, if something must be done, I would rather run the risk of some sort of cyber threat, then rush a bill that may or may not prove useful, or may in fact be used for entirely different purposes that I do not support. I have seen too many bills where the backers insist the bill will "only" be used a certain way, in order to leave out measures to protect against misuse, and then have the bill used in the exact way the backers insisted it wouldn't. Some fine examples include the Pro-IP act, Canada's failed "Protecting children from Internet Predators Act" that was really an online surveillance bill whose only mention of Child Porn was in its name, and who could forget the Patriot Act.
If there is to be a Cyber-Security bill passed that may affect me, I want that bill to be as specific as possible, thoroughly researched, and to give only as much power as necessary to the government to reduce the collateral from misuses that will inevitably happen.
My problem with this particular bill, CISPA, is its broad undefined wording, how it overrides any state legislation on the matter, the exemption from FOIA, and the thought of worrying my private data being shared without my knowing not only by hackers but by the government as well.
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re:
The same student who is complimented by his teacher for getting an A in Calculus, could then right after be berated by his Physics teacher for failing. Just because you are lauded in one field of study, doesn't mean you should gain recognition in others.
On the post: CISPA Is A Really Bad Bill, And Here's Why
Re: Georgia?
If their really are a lot of supporters in Florida, I'm gonna have a pretty busy summer protesting...
On the post: Paramount's Post-SOPA 'Outreach' To Law Students About 'Content Theft' Still Shows An Out Of Touch Operation
Re:
On the post: Paramount's Post-SOPA 'Outreach' To Law Students About 'Content Theft' Still Shows An Out Of Touch Operation
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: No, Violating Your Employer's Computer Use Policy Is Not Criminal Hacking
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Feds Tried To Destroy All Evidence Of Memo Saying They Were Committing War Crimes With Torture
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Is there such a thing?
On the post: Feds Tried To Destroy All Evidence Of Memo Saying They Were Committing War Crimes With Torture
Re: Re:
Next >>