Proposed CISPA Amendment Would Give DHS Unprecedented Access to Web Traffic

34

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

oldobamaliar

sheila jackscoon lee is a retarded radical leftest cunt bent on our destruction

avatar

Carlidan

Now do you have the balls to say that in her face. Nah, I think not.

avatar

avenger48

I would, but it doesn't really matter, does it? Now, DHS knows that you think that.

avatar

Penterax

Using Facebook as a source to check CISPA's privacy policies is like asking al-Qaeda what national security procedures we should follow.

If they want real help with their legal wording, I suggest they contact someone like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).

avatar

I Jedi

Jesus Christ, look at the Constitution, people. Article 1, Second 8 gives no rules allowing for such a thing, except through maybe the commerce clause, but that was meant to help open trade amongst the states, not to be raped to the extent governmen't has tried to do so. The only other thing they could claim they had legal authority is the fourth amendment. They'd have to get a search warrant, though, every time, and it sounds a lot like bs that they could get ISPs to hold information for any amount of time without first having probable cause to do so by the courts. Even then, ISPs are private entities that provide a service, they are not governmental business. Unless Congress wants to nationalize ISP companies.

Oh, and before anyone claims the Patriot Act or the provisions of 1022 from NDAA 2012, both are illegal Constitutionally speaking. Rights are not privileges, and can only be taken away through due cause of the court system. (Unless you commit treason... then I think Congress has the authority to try and convict you.) Not by some brain dead retarded child bill Congress shoots out regularly now, such as this.

This bill is complete shit, and Congress, the opposite of progress, should feel bad.

avatar

Carlidan

If you look at the headline. They are trying make it an amendment to the Constitution so they can make it legal.

avatar

compro01

No, they're amending the bill, not the constitution.

avatar

Carlidan

Ah roger that. :)

avatar

big_montana

You cannot just pass a bill and call it a Constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments have to be passed by a 2/3 majority of the 50 states. Do they not teach civics in school anymore, or reading comprehension as the headline says nothing about it being a Constitutional amendment?

avatar

Carlidan

Jeez I still haven't at least gotten an apology. :(

avatar

Carlidan

I think you meant you want a Constitutional Convention. That requires 2/3 of Governors to call one. Not sure about that one. But if you want to know that too, I'll look that up for you. :)

I thought you learned about Constitution in History and not Civics but what do I know. :( MY CIVICS isn't really that good, but I know yours is. :(

avatar

Carlidan

Ah it requires a 2/3 of the states legislature to call a Constitutional Convention. As NBC says "The More You Know". That means 34 states have to call for one. But my math be wrong too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Attempts_to_call_another_constitutional_convention

Guess I need to go back to school. I was wrong about this one.

avatar

Carlidan

"Constitutional amendments have to be passed by a 2/3 majority of the 50 states"
What? I think you meant 2/3 of both the house and senate not 2/3 majority of 50 states. Because if that's the case. 2/3 of what in the state. Do you mean 2/3 of a states senate and legislative?

I'll give you an example of a recent constitutional amendment. Did you remember. PROHIBITION. Guess what that was the 18th AMENDMENT of the Constitution.

Prohibition in the United States
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition

But I guess MY reading comprehension is bad as you say. Again what do I know anyways. These facts could just be lies anyways. :(

avatar

Carlidan

I know how much it takes amend the Constitution. It needs 2/3 of both chambers of congress. I read amendment on the headline and assuming that they are trying to do that.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

It did not say a bill but the headline says "Proposed CISPA Amendment Would Give DHS Unprecedented Access to Web Traffic".
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061027113832AAgHxs8
http://www.house.gov/content/learn/legislative_process/
I was not wrong to assume an amendment since the headline said an Amendment on the freaking headline. Amendments and a bill are two different process but both become law at the end.

Joint resolutions may originate either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate. There is little practical difference between a bill and a joint resolution. Both are subject to the same procedure, except for a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution. On approval of such a resolution by two-thirds of both the House and Senate, it is sent directly to the Administrator of General Services for submission to the individual states for ratification. It is not presented to the President for approval. A joint resolution originating in the House of Representatives is designated “H.J.Res.” followed by its individual number. Joint resolutions become law in the same manner as bills

My reading comphrension is very good. But what do I know. :)

avatar

btdog

Leave it to those lousy Republicans to come up with an amendment like...wait, that's not right.
Well, what we need are more Federal Regulations...wait, CISPA is a Federal Regulation.

So, Lilly, you're in FAVOR of CISPA?

avatar

Paul_Lilly

Not sure where or how you drew that conclusion, but no, I'm not in favor of CISPA.

avatar

Trooper_One

durka durka mohammed jihad.

Ug oh, I guess this message was just intercepted by Homeland security - and MPC's site is subject to shut down due to copyright violation.

avatar

silverblack

So if the White House is fair game, I assume Congess is too? And they are going to vote to give a political appointee access to their emails and such? I didn't have a high opinion of Congress, but I didn't think they were that stupid.

avatar

Medic1532

So if you use voice over IP DHS no longer needs a warrant as long as the packet crosses a federal system router. You have no control which routers the packet uses so if I have a hardwired phone line DHS needs a judge to issue a warrant but if I am using skype and the traffic crosses a federal system at any time on its way from point a to point b they don't or did I miss something.

"The Secretary of Homeland Security is authorized, notwithstanding any other provision of law, to acquire, intercept, retain, use, and disclose communications and other system traffic that are transiting to or from or stored on Federal systems"

avatar

NineRaven

This is a complete joke. Its so poorly written and will clearly do nothing. Do they just let anyone in the DHS nowadays? We should just get rid of the Dep of Homeland Security before they do anymore awful shit like this again. It's getting real tiresome seeing the government try the same tactics over and over with different names. How about you give it a rest and go deal with a real problem? Everyone involved with this lady should be fired for 1- letting her in politics and 2- letting this go to the floor. This should have been laughed out the moment it was presented.

avatar

Shalbatana

What price are you willing to pay for security and safety? The intention is to protect, but could it be used to harm? Is it all in the wording?

There are cruel entities in the world that this would help protect against, but there are those in power who could be part of the problem and not part of the cause.

Are we all paranoid? Of course this could be exploited, but let's be honest, if someone in the govt is going to be so despicable as to exploit this intention for a "bad" or unjust cause, they would do it whether the policy is in place or not.

Lots to think about, many solutions, no answers.

A matter for another day. I want my coffee.

avatar

ApathyCurve

Sheila Jackson Lee is a prime example of everything that is wrong with the American political system today. She made it into office -- and is continually re-elected -- because her district is one of the most offensively gerrymandered in the entire country, (seriously, it looks like an octopus on the map). The district was created along lines of social status (dirt poor) and race (black) and is an abomination of our system. And since abominations tend to breed their own, Sheila Jackson Lee represents it in Congress.

The only thing Ms Lee cares about is getting her face on television as often and as long as possible. She is rude, elitist, and shamelessly power-hungry. I'd trust an enraged cobra with my life before I'd lend her a single red cent.

avatar

warptek2010

Yep, this is the "congresswoman" that once slapped someone and got away with it with just an apology (i think). But that is the least disturbing of what she's done, the vile rhetoric I have heard her spout is just plain amazing for an elected official... not only is she elitist and rude but just embarrassingly stupid too.

avatar

stradric

Texas has a pretty nasty history of gerrymandering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Texas_redistricting

avatar

Peanut Fox

Just looked at her district.... What's with the pristine soon to be cut off zone in it's center?

avatar

damicatz

I neither desire nor want the government's "help" in telling me how to secure my company's computer networks.

The government is good at incompetence, corruption, and hiring clowns and prostitutes (and frankly, with a clown in the oval office who has prostituted this country out to the highest bidder, the government already has all the clowns and prostitutes it needs).

The government telling me how to secure MY networks is like the blind man leading the seeing eye dog. Seriously, all you need to do to be good at computer security is to do the opposite of what the clowns in Washington do (e.g Don't let your employees use private G-Mail accounts to handle company business). It's also not generally considered good practice to share your security processes and procedures with random outside parties, especially those as incompetent and inept as government.

As for this surveillance nonsense, the government already does that. The federal government has operated outside of the law with complete impunity because of sovereign immunity.

avatar

stradric

I like how you blame 30 years of Reaganomics on Obama. Well done, sir. Got any more gems like that?

avatar

warptek2010

With the economy and the joblessness we have now you should be wishing for "30 years of Reaganomics". How incredibly stupid has this country become anyway?

avatar

Carlidan

You mean if you trickle down economics didn't work? OMG! I always thought if you gave the rich more tax breaks and more money it will trickle down to us. You know they will "invest" in the economy or if your lucky they will buy a really really expensive toy and help the economy that way.

avatar

tekknyne

The price of gas is also obama's fault :)

avatar

Carlidan

It is his fault.It's not because of the speculators driving up the cost. We also give enormous tax breaks to the oil industry. If we didn't it will be upwards of at least 8.00 a gallon.
/sarcasm

avatar

aaronj2906

And anyone who is trying to hide something will use a VPN or other encryption, making this bill moot. As usual, only law abiding citizens will be "hurt".

My only experience with S.J. Lee is hearing her voice as a sound-byte (lots of them) on talk radio. Honestly, I fail to understand how someone who sounds like her 1-made it into politics and 2-is even listened to.

avatar

Biceps

The entire point of this bill is not cyber-security, it is to intentionally control (hurt) law abiding citizens. Congress isn't stupid, it is evil and owned.

avatar

khekai28

You can definitely see your expertise in the work you write. The world hopes for even more passionate writers like you who are not afraid to say how they believe. Always follow your heart.garden umbrella

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.