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 15
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

3589 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-04-18 08:42:05 PM  
2 votes:

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 08:40:12 PM  
2 votes:
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.
2013-04-19 06:03:04 AM  
1 votes:

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.
2013-04-18 10:47:53 PM  
1 votes:
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 10:26:48 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:14:57 PM  
1 votes:

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


Those people are literally scared of babies.
2013-04-18 10:08:08 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:06:30 PM  
1 votes:

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 10:01:25 PM  
1 votes:

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 09:58:55 PM  
1 votes:

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

2013-04-18 09:58:09 PM  
1 votes:
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 09:23:53 PM  
1 votes:
The cure for these issues is jail time.
2013-04-18 08:52:05 PM  
1 votes:

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 08:45:27 PM  
1 votes:
Sucky blog rants too much, obscuring exactly how wife will benefit.
2013-04-18 08:40:05 PM  
1 votes:
Not surprised. Not one bit.
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report