If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Dirt)   Look, I'm sure there's a perfectly reasonable explanation as to why Rep Mike Rogers, the primary driver for CISPA, neglected to mention the big payday his wife's former cybersecurity defense contracting company stands to receive if the Bill passes   (techdirt.com) divider line 57
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3588 clicks; posted to Geek » on 18 Apr 2013 at 8:37 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



57 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-04-18 08:40:05 PM
Not surprised. Not one bit.
 
2013-04-18 08:40:12 PM
I really rarely call my senator or house rep--I live in CA, I'm a lib, so they generally vote on these bills as I'd hoped they would. But this was too important. I actually found myself leaving an awkward message for Feinstein and Boxer.

I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.
 
2013-04-18 08:40:44 PM
Youdontsay.jpg
 
2013-04-18 08:42:05 PM

TheWarp: Not surprised. Not one bit.


Politicians only work when they stand to make money from it, or political capitol they can use to get re-elected / elected to a higher office.

/Our only hope is Trillionare humanitarians.
//We are so farked.
 
2013-04-18 08:44:24 PM

TimonC346: I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.


From my point of view, people rise up over the first amendment (when it suits them) or the fourth amendment, but forget all about the second amendment, the tenth amendment, the first amendment again (when it doesn't suit them) or sometimes even the fifth.

But no, we agree perfectly fine here. As I understand the bill, this should be completely invalid under the fourth amendment.
 
2013-04-18 08:45:27 PM
Sucky blog rants too much, obscuring exactly how wife will benefit.
 
2013-04-18 08:45:49 PM
I've read complaints about news organizations immediately posting the fact that someone is a Republican, or burying the fact that they're a Democrat, if the story is bad.
I offer this story as a rebuttal.
 
2013-04-18 08:50:23 PM
So lemme get this straight. Gun background check bill fails and invasive Internet bill passes? They should cross check those who voted down the gun bill and voted yay for CISPA to determine which are corrupt beyond belief
 
2013-04-18 08:50:42 PM

Elmo Jones: I've read complaints about news organizations immediately posting the fact that someone is a Republican, or burying the fact that they're a Democrat, if the story is bad.
I offer this story as a rebuttal.


But that's only because it's so obvious what party this guy is a member of that they didn't have to even put the letter after his name.
 
2013-04-18 08:52:05 PM

jonny_q: TimonC346: I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.

From my point of view, people rise up over the first amendment (when it suits them) or the fourth amendment, but forget all about the second amendment, the tenth amendment, the first amendment again (when it doesn't suit them) or sometimes even the fifth.

But no, we agree perfectly fine here. As I understand the bill, this should be completely invalid under the fourth amendment.


reallyt? half the time i hear second amendment all over the place maybe first after that and then fourth
 
2013-04-18 08:52:15 PM
Move along, folks. Nothing to see here.
 
2013-04-18 08:52:53 PM
Dammit, Fark ate my image

www.biography.com
 
2013-04-18 08:56:37 PM

Virulency: jonny_q: TimonC346: I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.

From my point of view, people rise up over the first amendment (when it suits them) or the fourth amendment, but forget all about the second amendment, the tenth amendment, the first amendment again (when it doesn't suit them) or sometimes even the fifth.

But no, we agree perfectly fine here. As I understand the bill, this should be completely invalid under the fourth amendment.

reallyt? half the time i hear second amendment all over the place maybe first after that and then fourth


There are citizens out there who genuinely beg their elected officials to take other people's guns away. Almost no one goes out begging their representatives to take other people's privacy away. But I guess you could find at least one anecdote of all manner of stupid shiat.
 
2013-04-18 08:59:46 PM

Elmo Jones: I've read complaints about news organizations immediately posting the fact that someone is a Republican, or burying the fact that they're a Democrat, if the story is bad.
I offer this story as a rebuttal.


You're right. One outlier invalidates the entire trend.
 
2013-04-18 09:10:46 PM

jjorsett: Elmo Jones: I've read complaints about news organizations immediately posting the fact that someone is a Republican, or burying the fact that they're a Democrat, if the story is bad.
I offer this story as a rebuttal.

You're right. One outlier invalidates the entire trend.


Meanwhile, in reality, this is but one of many "outliers" that are actually more common than examples that follow the supposed "trend".
 
2013-04-18 09:18:39 PM

jonny_q: Almost no one goes out begging their representatives to take other people's privacy away.


That is pretty much the entire reason that social conservatives exist, not to mention any time the argument "if you aren't doing anything wrong, what do you have to be afraid of?" is brought up in regards to FISA courts, warrantless wiretapping, and various tough on crime proposals.
 
2013-04-18 09:22:20 PM
I'll take 'Conflicts of Interest' for $1000, Alex.
 
2013-04-18 09:23:53 PM
The cure for these issues is jail time.
 
2013-04-18 09:29:37 PM
The only thing surprising is that people are surprised that our government is flat out for sale.
 
2013-04-18 09:40:47 PM

TheBigJerk: Meanwhile, in reality, this is but one of many "outliers" that are actually more common than examples that follow the supposed "trend".


1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-04-18 09:44:18 PM
Can someone tell me if it's a Republican or a Democrat?  It helps me figure out if what he did is really bad or not.
 
2013-04-18 09:46:03 PM
Hopefully one of the useful idiots like RAND PAUL will kill this in the Senate. It would certainly be the best thing he's done to date, and not even out of line with his stated positions.
 
m00
2013-04-18 09:55:47 PM

TimonC346: I really rarely call my senator or house rep--I live in CA, I'm a lib, so they generally vote on these bills as I'd hoped they would. But this was too important. I actually found myself leaving an awkward message for Feinstein and Boxer.

I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.


That's not true.

During the Republican presidential primary debates when it was down to the final 4, EVERY Republican candidate came out strongly against CISPA except for Santorum, who was only kinda against it. Personally I think Gingrich and Paul actually understood the issue, and Romney was just on the bandwagon.
 
2013-04-18 09:58:09 PM
I like how Wikipedia, Facebook, and all the other internet giants are silent about this now that they've been granted various protections.
 
2013-04-18 09:58:55 PM

Aarontology: The only thing surprising is that people are surprised that our government is flat out for sale.

 
2013-04-18 10:01:25 PM

jonny_q: Almost no one goes out begging their representatives to take other people's privacy away. But I guess you could find at least one anecdote of all manner of stupid shiat.


Don't kid yourself. It's not begging, but there are a whole huge number of morons out there who not only support but demand that the government invasively surveille everyone online. They adamantly insist that "if you did nothing wrong you have nothing to fear", and if you point out countless examples from literally the dawn of history proving how insanely stupid this is then they'll accuse you various of being pro-Turrist, an internet anarchist, or (ironically enough) naive.

And unlike the gubermint comin fer da guns, the US government does routinely invade (or attempt to invade) the privacy of almost every single packet sent over US-crossing parts of the Internet, and quite openly force ISPs to cooperate with the process.
 
2013-04-18 10:06:30 PM

Uglybarnacle: So lemme get this straight. Gun background check bill fails and invasive Internet bill passes? They should cross check those who voted down the gun bill and voted yay for CISPA to determine which are corrupt beyond belief


That's easy, the answer is.... all of them.
 
2013-04-18 10:06:51 PM
...And Obama has vowed to veto. The odds of the Senate passing this with a veto-proof majority have to be pretty slim, right?
 
2013-04-18 10:07:09 PM
there is a good explanation, it;s in the headline, his wife makes a load of dough, duh!
 
2013-04-18 10:08:08 PM

Blue_Blazer: ...And Obama has vowed to veto. The odds of the Senate passing this with a veto-proof majority have to be pretty slim, right?


An Obama threat is about as threatening as a kitten armed with a pillow.
 
2013-04-18 10:08:23 PM

FLMountainMan: Can someone tell me if it's a Republican or a Democrat?  It helps me figure out if what he did is really bad or not.


R
 
2013-04-18 10:11:38 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Blue_Blazer: ...And Obama has vowed to veto. The odds of the Senate passing this with a veto-proof majority have to be pretty slim, right?

An Obama threat is about as threatening as a kitten armed with a pillow.


Be that as it may, and there are plenty (dead and alive) who would disagree with you, I believe him.
 
2013-04-18 10:13:17 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Blue_Blazer: ...And Obama has vowed to veto. The odds of the Senate passing this with a veto-proof majority have to be pretty slim, right?

An Obama threat is about as threatening as a kitten armed with a pillow.


Funny.

And yet people seem so skerred of his drones.
 
2013-04-18 10:14:53 PM
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS FOR POOR PEOPLE!
 
2013-04-18 10:14:57 PM

Peki: And yet people seem so skerred of his drones.


Those people are literally scared of babies.
 
2013-04-18 10:25:58 PM

fusillade762: CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS FOR POOR PEOPLE!


So is insider trading.
 
2013-04-18 10:26:48 PM

SpdrJay: The cure for these issues is jail time.


Sounds good to me.

In the back of my mind I'm thinking of things like "legal precedent" and "proof of thoughtcrime" but fark it.  These THINGS we call politicians have been immune to prosecution for far too long.  Time for some good old torches and pitchforks.
 
2013-04-18 10:28:03 PM
"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...

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."


While I was ready to roll in here and post with indignation about corrupt government, this is a non-story.  At least, this particular angle is.

Aegis is a private military contractor.   Think Blackwater not digital security.  In this context "security" means blast resistant walls, men with guns, and armored suburbans.  His wife may be in the industry, but it is not the clear conflict of interest that the author claims.

The authors lack of understanding weakens the fight against CISPA.  He is commenting incorrectly on an entire occupational field, much like the people who wrote CISPA.  This was on the level of "the internet is a series of tubes."
 
2013-04-18 10:43:37 PM
his explanation is shut the fark up and there's not a damn thing you can do about it
 
2013-04-18 10:47:27 PM

Blue_Blazer: Hopefully one of the useful idiots like RAND PAUL will kill this in the Senate. It would certainly be the best thing he's done to date, and not even out of line with his stated positions.


Was the bill's sponsor a Republican, or a Democrat? They'll only filibuster along party lines, these days.
 
2013-04-18 10:47:53 PM
To be fair, I think Congress would still be bending over backwards to take away Internet freedoms at the request of big business even if some of their relatives weren't going to profit tremendously from doing so.
 
2013-04-18 10:53:57 PM
Look, I'm $ure there'$ a perfectly rea$onable explanation a$ to why Rep MIke Roger$, the primary driver for CI$PA, neglected to mention the big payday hi$ wife'$ former cyber$ecurity defen$e contracting company $tand$ to receive if the Bill pa$$e$


FTFS
 
2013-04-18 10:56:02 PM

TimonC346: I really rarely call my senator or house rep--I live in CA, I'm a lib, so they generally vote on these bills as I'd hoped they would. But this was too important. I actually found myself leaving an awkward message for Feinstein and Boxer.

I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.


Doesn't get involved - Surprised when his representatives act like the boss is on vacation.
 
2013-04-18 10:56:31 PM

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Peki: And yet people seem so skerred of his drones.

Those people are literally scared of babies.


cache.gawkerassets.com

I have fond memories of this.
 
2013-04-18 11:04:40 PM

Kittypie070: LouDobbsAwaaaay: Peki: And yet people seem so skerred of his drones.

Those people are literally scared of babies.

[cache.gawkerassets.com image 300x216]

I have fond memories of this.


Aiya.

And people on the other thread are saying we're overreacting for hoping it's white guys so we don't go all PATRIOT on anyone who remotely looks like the Boston bombers.

/we are not as evolved as we'd like to think we are
 
2013-04-18 11:10:09 PM
Scary how much of a hold the so-called "minority" has over our government and society.

Does this shiat even have a chance of passing?
 
2013-04-18 11:30:49 PM
So... Monday's incident was a false flag to give further justification to CISPA?
 
2013-04-18 11:55:38 PM
Why can't I ever find a non-reactionary description of what CISPA does?
 
2013-04-18 11:57:37 PM

Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: TimonC346: I really rarely call my senator or house rep--I live in CA, I'm a lib, so they generally vote on these bills as I'd hoped they would. But this was too important. I actually found myself leaving an awkward message for Feinstein and Boxer.

I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.

Doesn't get involved - Surprised when his representatives act like the boss is on vacation


are you farking retarded? I rarely get involved, I DO when it matters--my point is that I wish they'd represent their constituents. Besides--if you read--they usually vote LIKE I WANT THEM TO.

Learn to read. Please. Out of context comments don't work well when my original comment is there
 
2013-04-19 02:04:04 AM
You know, Mike Masnick (MM), that when you use an acronym such as CISPA in an article, it is typically seen as proper form to write it out in the first instance, then use the abbreviated form thereafter. I could only remember that it was Cyber Intelligence Sharing and ________ Act. Ah, yes, Protection, I remember that now, but for about 20 seconds I had to pause, thinking, "Is it Proliferation? Promulgation?" (My memory is so full of crappy acronyms that they all just get jumbled up now.)

No, that's not your fault, MM, but consider the following from the Wiki Manual of Style:

an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. To save space, in "small spaces" (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), acronyms do not need to be written out in full. When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked.

Thanks MM! POYSEFAJMFFTDWJODAC
 
2013-04-19 02:49:03 AM

Feral_and_Preposterous: You know, Mike Masnick (MM), that when you use an acronym such as CISPA in an article, it is typically seen as proper form to write it out in the first instance, then use the abbreviated form thereafter. I could only remember that it was Cyber Intelligence Sharing and ________ Act. Ah, yes, Protection, I remember that now, but for about 20 seconds I had to pause, thinking, "Is it Proliferation? Promulgation?" (My memory is so full of crappy acronyms that they all just get jumbled up now.)

No, that's not your fault, MM, but consider the following from the Wiki Manual of Style:

an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. To save space, in "small spaces" (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), acronyms do not need to be written out in full. When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked.

Thanks MM! POYSEFAJMFFTDWJODAC


Jesus christ dude, do you proofread in your sleep?
 
2013-04-19 05:47:36 AM

whidbey: Feral_and_Preposterous: You know, Mike Masnick (MM), that when you use an acronym such as CISPA in an article, it is typically seen as proper form to write it out in the first instance, then use the abbreviated form thereafter. I could only remember that it was Cyber Intelligence Sharing and ________ Act. Ah, yes, Protection, I remember that now, but for about 20 seconds I had to pause, thinking, "Is it Proliferation? Promulgation?" (My memory is so full of crappy acronyms that they all just get jumbled up now.)

No, that's not your fault, MM, but consider the following from the Wiki Manual of Style:

an acronym should be written out in full the first time it is used on a page, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g. Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Common exceptions to this rule are post-nominal initials because writing them out in full would cause clutter. To save space, in "small spaces" (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), acronyms do not need to be written out in full. When not written out in full on the first use on a page, an acronym should be linked.

Thanks MM! POYSEFAJMFFTDWJODAC

Jesus christ dude, do you proofread in your sleep?


I don't think it even needs to sleep.
 
2013-04-19 06:03:04 AM

TimonC346: I really rarely call my senator or house rep--I live in CA, I'm a lib, so they generally vote on these bills as I'd hoped they would. But this was too important. I actually found myself leaving an awkward message for Feinstein and Boxer.

I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.


I personally find all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights sacred. I hold that removing the protections of one of them will lead to the rest falling. (Well, maybe the 3rd won't right away...) I also think that anyone violating the rights of anyone else should be held accountable, doubly so for those in positions of authority (politicians, police, courts, etc.). I don't think the PATRIOT Act is constitutional, I don't think this abortion of a bill is either. I also think that things should be legal up to the point that it causes physical or financial harm to another person without their consent.  Want to own a fully automatic rifle with a billion round magazine? Sure, go ahead. The second you (or someone takes it from you and) uses it on another person, not in self defense? You get your ass smacked down. Want to yell fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire)? You just incited a panic, causing physical and financial harm. Jail time for you, buddy. Want to smoke a joint in the comfort of your home? Go right ahead, more power to you. You go out on the road in your car in that condition, screw you. Cop pulls you over and illegally searches your car because he had a 'hunch'? Cop gets fired and gos to prison for a LONG time. Politician sponsors an obviously unconstitutional bill? Removed from office and barred from public service, with some jail time.

The Constitution is the highest law of the country. You want to do something that isn't allowed, go through the amendment process to make it allowable, otherwise, keep your shiat bills to yourself.
 
2013-04-19 08:13:11 AM

TimonC346: Pelvic Splanchnic Ganglion: TimonC346: I really rarely call my senator or house rep--I live in CA, I'm a lib, so they generally vote on these bills as I'd hoped they would. But this was too important. I actually found myself leaving an awkward message for Feinstein and Boxer.

I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.

Doesn't get involved - Surprised when his representatives act like the boss is on vacation

are you farking retarded? I rarely get involved, I DO when it matters--my point is that I wish they'd represent their constituents. Besides--if you read--they usually vote LIKE I WANT THEM TO.

Learn to read. Please. Out of context comments don't work well when my original comment is there


Yeah, I read what you wrote.  I saw that you left an awkward message for two representatives.  That was it.  If you really cared about this bill, you would have called and written ALL of them, MULTIPLE TIMES, not just the ones that "usually vote like you want them to".  Don't blame your apathy on me.  People like you are the reason we have such crappy representation.  You do the bare minimum required of you (if that) and then complain about the results.
 
2013-04-19 08:21:19 AM
Leave Mike Rogers alone. He's just trying to provide for his family!
 
2013-04-19 10:40:39 AM

tgambitg: TimonC346: I really rarely call my senator or house rep--I live in CA, I'm a lib, so they generally vote on these bills as I'd hoped they would. But this was too important. I actually found myself leaving an awkward message for Feinstein and Boxer.

I like it how the 2nd amendment remains sacred, none of the others seem to be held in nearly as high regard.

I personally find all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights sacred. I hold that removing the protections of one of them will lead to the rest falling. (Well, maybe the 3rd won't right away...) I also think that anyone violating the rights of anyone else should be held accountable, doubly so for those in positions of authority (politicians, police, courts, etc.). I don't think the PATRIOT Act is constitutional, I don't think this abortion of a bill is either. I also think that things should be legal up to the point that it causes physical or financial harm to another person without their consent.  Want to own a fully automatic rifle with a billion round magazine? Sure, go ahead. The second you (or someone takes it from you and) uses it on another person, not in self defense? You get your ass smacked down. Want to yell fire in a crowded theater (when there is no fire)? You just incited a panic, causing physical and financial harm. Jail time for you, buddy. Want to smoke a joint in the comfort of your home? Go right ahead, more power to you. You go out on the road in your car in that condition, screw you. Cop pulls you over and illegally searches your car because he had a 'hunch'? Cop gets fired and gos to prison for a LONG time. Politician sponsors an obviously unconstitutional bill? Removed from office and barred from public service, with some jail time.

The Constitution is the highest law of the country. You want to do something that isn't allowed, go through the amendment process to make it allowable, otherwise, keep your shiat bills to yourself.


None of the rights outlined in the constitution is beyond limit or regulation. You could not be more wrong. And the Supreme court in Washington DC V Heller acknowledged as much.
 
2013-04-19 03:10:07 PM
Wow.  Could you stretch a non-story anymore to create hatred for something you must not have actually read.
 
Displayed 57 of 57 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report