What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

House Republicans Just Rammed Cispa Through

RetroGrow

Active member
Veteran
The battle lines are drawn. We must bombard our senators in protest! This is just the latest outrage in the attempt to monitor and control every phase of our lives.
 

northstate

Member
ICMag Donor
Agreed its crazy how things are re-named and slid into other bills ect. This Sopa with a twist . Bullshit.NS
 

blueberrydrumz

Active member
ICMag Donor
ohh dear, that very bad news... beginning of the end for us...

wiki
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) is a United States proposed law introduced on November 30, 2011 by U.S. Representative Michael Rogers (R-MI) and 111 co-sponsors.[1][2] It was passed in the House of Representatives on April 26, 2012.[3] Prior to the amendments offered during final passage of the bill that would address many Ad
 

PoopyTeaBags

State Liscensed Care Giver/Patient, Assistant Trai
Veteran
only passed by the house
not the senate

hopefully someone wills step up
 

PoopyTeaBags

State Liscensed Care Giver/Patient, Assistant Trai
Veteran
ill be off the internets if this passes the senate and sign into law
by o bummer
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
only passed by the house
not the senate

hopefully someone wills step up

ill be off the internets if this passes the senate and sign into law
by o bummer


As I understand it the White House has vowed to veto the bill. This is just political strategy. The Rebulicans are thinking the President won't want to be seen as weak on National Security in an election year. So they push something like this thru, if it passes then great, they got more ability to spy on the people they serve. If it doesn't pass then they got an angle to attack the President on in an election year. A win either way for the republicans.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47196773/ns/technology_and_science-security/
 

pearlemae

May your race always be in your favor
Veteran
Just can't figure why anyone would or could vote for a republican's. There are on the wrong side of everything. Except tax breaks for the uber rich which I'm sure aren't to many off them here on the mag. MY TWO CENTS
why would you vote against your own self interest. So what if Obama didn't make weed legal, The republicans want to make sex illegal for PETS SAKE...... I can't have no illegals cutting my lawn I'm running to be the head money man. Not the Pressy of the United Stezzy as Fallon said.
 

RetroGrow

Active member
Veteran
This will probably die in the senate, but if it doesn't, Obummer will veto it.
Stupid move by the Republicans, as it's a "lose-lose" for them. They will only make Obummer look better if they ram it through the senate, which is why I think it dies there.
 

Grobot2010

Member
Interesting, either I am not paying close attention these days, or they are just not covering this story on the news very heavily... weird.
 
I

Iron_Lion

As I understand it the White House has vowed to veto the bill. This is just political strategy.

Just like Obozo said he was going to veto NDAA, but then he waited til new years eve and signed it into law when no one was paying attention.
 
G

greenmatter

i'm all fucked up here ....... is it obama's fault?, or bushes fault?, or did reagan set it up to become clinton's fault?

or is it our fault for being o.k. with getting fucked coming and going ...... every day for the last 50 years?
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
Just like Obozo said he was going to veto NDAA, but then he waited til new years eve and signed it into law when no one was paying attention.

That's not really the same thing though because that is more a budget thing, detailing how money for the defense department should be spent and there were NDAA's years before Obama took Office.

Obama may have said he would veto it if certain things weren't changed but he couldn't veto it indefinately especially while we are currently fighting overseas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act#Individual_Acts
 

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
i'm all fucked up here ....... is it obama's fault?, or bushes fault?, or did reagan set it up to become clinton's fault?

or is it our fault for being o.k. with getting fucked coming and going ...... every day for the last 50 years?

From what I read on this topic it's not Obama's fault since he is against it although he's not against it for the right reasons, he feels it should be handled differently then the house bill and is wanting to hold out for a senate version that is currently stalled.
 

40AmpstoFreedom

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
The battle lines are drawn. We must bombard our senators in protest! This is just the latest outrage in the attempt to monitor and control every phase of our lives.



"The White House believes the government ought to control the Internet, government ought to set standards and government ought to take care of everything that's needed for cybersecurity," Boehner told reporters at his weekly news conference. "They're in a camp all by themselves."

Faced with widespread privacy concerns, Rogers and Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger of Maryland, the Intelligence panel's top Democrat, pulled together an amendment that limits the government's use of threat information to five specific purposes: cybersecurity; investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of individuals from death or serious bodily harm; protection of minors from child pornography; and the protection of national security.

Said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: "Until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem."

Countering criticism of Big Brother run amok, proponents argued that the bill does not allow the government to monitor private networks, read private emails or close a website. It urges companies that share data to remove personal information.

"There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill," Rogers said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47196773/ns/technology_and_science-security/?ocid=ansmsnbc11#.T5o1XFIuiSo

So does anyone have a cogent argument as to why this bill is not good and how on Earth the republicans are bad or wanting to spy on you when the democrats version did just that???...

Are some of you simply reading the title of a bill and not the actual substance? Can anyone provide actual wording from the bill that does anything bad like some are attempting to imply in this thread?

I am completely against anything that is what some of you are saying this bill is but have yet to see anything you are claiming...I will wait to be proven wrong...and will gladly grab my pitch fork and molotov cocktails and help you light yours as well if I am wrong but you may want to watch out for big sis cuz last I heard those types of folks are on the list as greatest risk to America according the head of Homeland Security who has a big D on her party card ...

"In an effort to foster information sharing, this bill would erode the privacy protections of every single American using the Internet. It would create a 'Wild West' of information sharing," said Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee.

If this is true then I am against it but so far everything I have read this is not true the bill included limits on what can be shared and why.
 
Last edited:

HempKat

Just A Simple Old Dirt Farmer
Veteran
You sound like a republican that is odd?

I fail to see how any of this is an issue much less worse than what the ridiculous liberals were trying to do:





http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47196773/ns/technology_and_science-security/?ocid=ansmsnbc11#.T5o1XFIuiSo

So does anyone have a cogent argument as to why this bill is not good and how on Earth the republicans are bad or wanting to spy on you when the democrats version did just that...

Are some of you simply reading the title of a bill and not the actual substance?

The cogent argument for either side is that you can't take politician's at their word. Just because a Republican says there is no provisions for spying doesn't mean it won't get used that way. The chief complaint I gather from the democratic side is that it's too open allowing authorities to overstep the intension of the bill. Likewise you can't trust that just because the left claims to have the privacy of citizens at the center of their concerns does not mean their solution will really be any better.

Just look at that nice little present called TARP that Bush gave us at the end of his 2nd term. It was billed as an intent to buy up toxic foreclosures so that they wouldn't be sitting on the books of banks, hence the name Troubled Asset Relief Program.However a month after it was passed Bush changed it via executive order essentially allowing his Secratery of the Treasury to spend the money allocated for TARP on anything he saw fit to spend it on thereby creating the scenario where AIG execs enjoyed hefty Christmas Bonuses on the taxpayers dime.
 

40AmpstoFreedom

Active member
ICMag Donor
Veteran
I agree with you for sure I just am not as educated or up to date with this. We have Dems and aclu saying this:
"Once in government hands, this information can be used for undefined 'national security' purposes unrelated to cybersecurity," a coalition that included the American Civil Liberties Union and former conservative Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., wrote lawmakers Thursday.

And Rep's saying this:

Faced with widespread privacy concerns, Rogers and Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger of Maryland, the Intelligence panel's top Democrat, pulled together an amendment that limits the government's use of threat information to five specific purposes: cybersecurity; investigation and prosecution of cybersecurity crimes; protection of individuals from death or serious bodily harm; protection of minors from child pornography; and the protection of national security

Said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: "Until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem."

Countering criticism of Big Brother run amok, proponents argued that the bill does not allow the government to monitor private networks, read private emails or close a website. It urges companies that share data to remove personal information.

"There is no government surveillance, none, not any in this bill," Rogers said.

WTF lol? Not one news article have I seen that cited words from the bill itself and that renders me unable to make a sound judgment and being someone who does not want to rush to judgment I would like to see proof. If the REP's and DEM's mantra of putting safeguards for privacy in this bill is true I am for it that is fine with me. If not I will join the marching army.

By the way I think the best thing to do is push for constitutional amendment/legislation for privacy like Joe Barton says.

Said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas: "Until we protect the privacy rights of our citizens, the solution is worse than the problem."

I think we can all agree on that! Perhaps this bill should be vetoed until we provide sound privacy rights to all citizens to protect us from laws like the Homeland security bill. They tried to rush that shit too just like the healthcare bill so no one can read them and we all get screwed in the end.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top