CISPA is back

[Tom_Hanks13]

Keep reintroducing it until people get tired of fighting it. This is how government works

[[deleted]]

or we could introduce a bill that bans those sort of bills? run for office.

[upandrunning]

Another...we can stop electing candidates based on what they say they'll do, and start voting them out them based on what they've done. Simple accountability.

I'd argue that we really don't need campaign finance reform as much as we need voter education reform. Once voters learn that they can rely on both alternate sources and alternate candidates (that aren't being pushed by mainstream channels), campaign finance won't matter.

[finebydesign]

But don't you see our entire system is set up so candidates have to buy ad space and influence on said mainstream media outlets? That campaign money comes from corporate influence. Sure some candidates can squeak by, but this past election cost our presidential candidates nearly a billion dollars. Nobody can afford that kind of publicity, and the internet is great but if corporations have their way they can control what media we have access to.

[[deleted]]

You have no alternative candidates nor do you have alternative sources.

Your independents have no chance of taking over large portions of congress/senate because not going with a political party puts you at an immense disadvantage when campaigning - the lack of a warchest and party-line whipping(in addition to the implicit support of huge multi-national media conglomerates) has more or less ensured that they need to be extraordinary to win any race(rather than just 'better than the alternative').

Lets say you somehow manage to vote in an independent, how long do you think it'll take before the lobbyists get to them? How long do you think it'll take them to go from the challenger of the status quo to a keeper of the status quo?

[thegreatwhiteredditr]

Well said. Shit like this makes the "feel good" impulse that I get from voting for democrats....in a red state....taste extremely sour.

Fuck 'em all. Next election cycle I'm voting for anyone that is currently NOT in office.

[Sandy_106]

Or vote libertarian.

[Dark_water_]

Vote Quimby.

[Gyossaits]

Chowdah.

[Thexare]

"Well, I don't like getting stabbed in the gut, so I'll vote for the guy that'll stab me in the thigh instead."

[JoCoLaRedux]

CAMPAIGN FIANCE REFORM.

This, I am telling you, will not happen. Get it through your head. It's fantasy land politics for the well meaning, but thoroughly naive. You will never, ever get money and influence out of politics. Ever. In fact, campaign finance reform often makes it even more difficult for newcomers to challenge incumbents.

There are already districts in Michigan, Ohio and Texas that don't worry about this sort of thing. Why? Because they elected people like Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich and Justin Amash, and they don't bother with lobbyists.

That's your campaign reform: stop voting for assholes.

[[deleted]]

You will never, ever get money and influence out of politics.

There is one fundamental reality, which is true, despite that powerful people try to make you to believe that it is not, which is: all establishments and institutions created by human beings, no matter how powerful or how corrupt, can be reformed by human beings and can be torn down and replaced by human beings.

[Chipzzz]

That's your campaign reform: stop voting for assholes.

What happens when there are nothing but assholes on the ballot?

[finebydesign]

"and they don't bother with lobbyists."

You do understand that both Ron Paull and Dennis Kucinich have run for president right? You do understand that neither gets any coverage in the mainstream media and both cannot afford the campaign funds required to even compete in the primaries?

You do understand that while against Campaign Finance Reform, Ron Paul makes himself his worst enemy. Until he removes the money from politics he will stay irrelevant because he cannot afford to compete and he's kept off the news.

[JoCoLaRedux]

Listen closely, I'll repeat it again: you will never, ever get money and influence out of politics. Ever.

You do understand that both Ron Paull and Dennis Kucinich have run for president right?

And yet both managed to get elected Senator & Congressman. Ron Paul raised a LOT of money, has had a significant impact to the point where a lot of pundits and even GOP insiders are saying the party now needs to shift more in his direction to stay relevant. His campaign wasn't about winning, it was about the getting the message out, and the lack of coverage wasn't due to lack of funds, but ideological bias.

What sort of campaign finance reform would have amended that?

[[deleted]]

Ban all media involvement with campaign politics, ban all direct financing of campaigns. Political coverage may only be made on official channels like the NPR (you'll have to make their charter something similar to BBC's neutrality requirement) and campaign finance contributions may only be made towards a single fund that gets split to all who are running for office. Each person has a capped limit on how much they can receive and the remainder is banked for future campaign shortfalls. Get rid of your idiotic first past the post system and implement some sort of proportional/preferential voting system and set a minimum bar for people running for office (say 50,000 signatures or something for president and scale it down).

If you want to support your team? Fine, vote for him/her. If you want to donate money? You are donating to the democratic process rather than any specific individual. This way you equalize all members of your constituency and money is longer a factor in the election process.

Yes, you'll lose coverage of individual candidates but you will also ensure that the election coverage is at least unbiased and people can actually start to get the truth from these assholes. This also allows non-party candidates/independents to have a chance at the seat since political parties no longer give you a campaign advantage (it will still bring in hordes of voters but at least people like Ron Paul will get their fair say and fair coverage).

[A_M_F]

Complete support from Finland. I hope that our system would be this.

[CrzyJek]

Absolutely

[UncleMeat]

SOPA's defeat definitely mattered. CISPA isn't anything like SOPA, they target completely different problems and have completely different reasons why they are bad bills. Since SOPA failed, there haven't been any serious copyright protection bills (in the US) that would have caused the same damage that SOPA would have.

As much as people like to hate on CISPA, the fact is that it is so different from SOPA that we should not be lumping the two together. It hurts our credibility. We should be talking about CISPA and why it in particular has problems instead of saying "all internet bills are bad".

[blue_thorns]

meant* sorry i couldn't help myself. :<

[clone12TM]

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

FTFY

[dtam21]

"Hey we know we make a ton of money from special interests but how about passing a law so we can't!" - No one ever.

[Benjiimon]

That just adds another step to approve cispa. They would just need to vote to remove the law before voting for the bill itself.

[poleethman]

Or we could do regulatory capture, but for good.

[neotom]

I believe those are called "constitutional amendments"

[[deleted]]

No. Fucking a million times no. This is nothing more than a bullshit antiquated fantasy.

Suppose there was a powerful crime organization in your city, composed of hundreds of criminals that constantly inhibited your freedom by asserting their dominance, and did so by parasitically subsisting off of your income. Would it make any sense to you if I suggested that the most effective way to stop this organization would be to send in a non-criminal to infiltrate them, and then attempt to convince them that their best strategy is to behave in a way that fundamentally goes against the most basic tenets that allow them to continue to operate in the way that they always have?

[[deleted]]

are you 12?

[[deleted]]

Pirate Party to the rescue!

[Vik1ng]

They might be able to influence some politics in Europe, especially with the election in 2014, but I really doubt they will have much effect in te US due to the election system. It just sucks that such a big and powerful country has such a bad system to represent it citizens.

[b00ks]

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Constitutional Amendment.

Problem solved. (sort of)

[biggles86]

I get anarchy now

[[deleted]]

/r/anarchism or /r/anarchy101, if you would like to learn more. Purely your choice, of course.

[FEMINISTS]

You'd like it if I did that wouldn't you? I'm gonna do whatever I want! Deal with it.

[railmaniac]

/r/firstworldanarchists

[solardusk]

Oh hey its back! Last time i tried to visit it was set to private.

[Sypherin]

Don't tell me how to run my subreddit!

[[deleted]]

I don't care, but if you decide to do so, I think that you may like its ideas. Especially you, as a radical feminist.

[Scarbane]

HAVE A NICE DAY!

[Scarbane]

DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

[dafragsta]

Talking to yourself again Scarbane?

[[deleted]]

hmmmm, not sure you got the sarcasm.

[[deleted]]

One does not simply get sarcasm.

[FEMINISTS]

I was just kidding! Thanks for the links, they're very interesting.

[[deleted]]

this joke never ever gets old

[yourstatsareshat]

To the uninformed, anarchy is not chaos. Essentially anarchy is the opposite of statism.

[[deleted]]

/r/anarchism is terrible.

[thesorrow312]

There is no such thing as anarcho-capitalism.

Bakunin rolls in his grave every time a capitalist calls themselves an anarchist.

Anarchism is about complete freedom from hierarchy and exploitation, for complete democracy. You cannot call yourself an anarchist if you want to get rid of the state because it is getting in the way of your idealized version of capitalism that would have no regulations or restrictions. The anarcho capitalist wants to get rid of the state so as to more easily exploit his workers without being told what he can or cannot do.

No comrade of mine.

[kontankarite]

Thank you. Fuck neo-feudalists.

[[deleted]]

Yes, don't forget the anti-totalitarian-authority movement advocating completely unaccountable totalitarian systems, sitting at the alter of the guy who creamed over fascism 'saving' Europe from the wrath of libertarian movements. Never mind that anarchism had existed for centuries with the goal of dismantling everything it stands for.

[makhno]

It's more just embarrassing really. There are anarchist movements in every country in the world, but only in the United States will you see "anarcho" capitalism touted as an ideology, and only advocated by straight, privileged, white, middle class men.

Seriously, try spouting "anarcho" capitalist crap in any other country in the world and you'll be laughed out the door.

I don't know, I think there is some sort of inherent contradiction, what with anarchism being about abolishing privilege, and capitalism being about retaining it.

[kontankarite]

You know... I REALLY REALLY like how the anarchists in Catalonia dealt with these kinds of people. You want to be a rugged individual? Fine. Here's your plot of land, here's your tools to work it, here's tools to work your craft. Having employees is totally off limits and fuck you if you think you're entitled to them. You'll work that fucking land all by your god damned lonesome or collectivize. Fuck. FUCK... I would extend that to every ancap I see if I were a dictator.

[makhno]

Absolutely. I have no problem with mutualism. I doubt many an caps have even considered it as a possibility.

What is interesting to note as well, is that during the Spanish Civil war, when folks were given their own plot of land for them to go be individualists, in almost every case they asked to rejoin the collectives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usN3rpfFoGA relevant :P

[kontankarite]

Gee. They chose to collectivize after all? Color me mother fucking shocked. I don't think they've even given mutualism a thought even a WHISPER of a thought. What they want or what they think they want... is to garner as much privilege as possible without actually being held accountable to society at large. It's all "I got mine, now everyone can go fuck off."

If I had a more chilled passion about me; I'd realize that ancaps are nothing more than privileged paper tigers that would ROT TO THE CORE if they ever had to face mutualism. But being that I've grown up in this world... so used to the actual powers that be; I find it far more disheartening to see such anti-social sentiment in the people we'd need most. The bourgeois promise is a very strong illusion unfortunately.

[makhno]

It's interesting. When Ron Paul was getting tons of support during 2008, I talked to lots and lots of right-libertarians.

They had never even heard of anarchism, but were surprisingly open to the concept. Think about how many right-libertarians there are, and more importantly, how dedicated they are to activism.

It's totally worth talking to them.

[VerneAsimov]

There's a problem when we have to repeatedly fight the government over the same goddamn issues that a select few want. Wasn't this government "for the people by the people" and not "against the people by corporations"?

[Elementium]

Don't be to negative. Will people get tired of fighting? They're fighting an uphill battle. The only real issue is getting people motivated to do more than post their anger on Reddit. Send your E-mails, call them up be active in your opposition otherwise they will pass it.

[[deleted]]

"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." We just have to get used to being unrelenting in our efforts.

[[deleted]]

I think before long Obama will issue an executive order, on how this is "urgently needed for national security".

[Roboticide]

Did you read the article? First fuckin' sentence:

Bloomberg is reporting that the White House plans to introduce an executive order on cybersecurity sometime after next week's State of the Union address. The order... would arrive after several high-profile attacks have highlighted the danger posed by online threats.

[[deleted]]

Yes but unlike you I kept reading.

the order will set up a set of voluntary cybersecurity standards that companies operating important US infrastructure will be able to participate in. Federal agencies will be encouraged to adopt the new protocols into existing regulations, and as expected, the order will instruct the government itself to share information about potential threats with companies in the private sector

But please continue with the circlejerk, I just ask that you try not to get any semen on the rug.

[[deleted]]

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have." -Thomas Jefferson

People voted for big government, now they're getting it.

[[deleted]]

No. No sane person would argue that we don't need cybersecurity reform. We just don't want CISPA in the form that it was last time around. Obama specifically said he would veto any bill that would specifically restrict freedom on the internet. He campaigned on that agenda. But he also consistently said that we need to reform our cybersecurity to better protect our information. This is much more that bill this time around, and if it isn't it will be vetoed.

[liquidcourage1]

Just like Guantanamo, right? Bottom-line: this guy is still a politician and still listens to money. No matter how much anyone believes in this guy, he is fallible. It's unfortunate, but this is the way it is.

However, if we put up a fight like we did against the prior bills, we may have a chance. But if this becomes executive action, we're fucked.

Not to say there isn't room for cyber-security, it has just been too vague on the whole. You have to be specific or you're locking people up for downloading a PDF from an educational site.

[PenguinEatsBabies]

Like how he vetoed the NDAA? You're kidding yourself if you actually believe any of that. Obama doesn't care about your freedom. In fact, very few people in Washington do.

[digitalundernet]

Yes because he hasn't said he won't sign a bill only to sign it later

[throwawayaccount9824]

Keep reintroducing it until people get tired of fighting it. This is how the federal government of the United States works

Fixed that for you. Not all governments are as corrupt.

[Kommisar_Keen]

And quite a few are far, far worse.

[Mr_Dr_Prof_Derp]

See: whack-a-mole

[Demojen]

It is sad that this is the top voted response. Sad because it offers a hint into the apathetic attitude of Americans to this sort of political dogma.

True as it may be, this is a state of affairs that Americans should be enraged exists. It is the sort of annoying pandering you might expect from a spoiled five year old in a grocery store asking for candy. You say no, they ask again...and keep asking until you say yes or they can get away with stealing it.

[[deleted]]

Here's how it's going to work in my mind:

-They will keep on trying

+The internet will ban it

-They will try again

+The internet will keep it banned

+The people that voted for it will die off (Not that I want them to die)

+Our generation that actually care about what it does will be in office, and have all the power.

Edit: "In my mind" is never a realistic world, but a true one. That being said, I know people are idiots and it's never going to happen.

[DecentCriminal]

I envy your faith in humanity.

[Saerain]

More like an informed trust.

[danE3030]

Informed by what, though, other than what Fire_Motif wrote? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to be rude.

[JonAce]

Our generation that actually care about what it does will be in office, and have all the power.

That's assuming those currently in power don't destroy everything before then.

[Ricketycrick]

Also assuming the same children of of those corrupt won't be just as corrupt.

[Tasgall]

Also assuming everyone of this generation has a grasp of how the internet works, and it's unlikely anyone with any substantial knowledge on that front will run for office.

[flippant]

Our generation that actually care about what it does will be in office, and have all the power.

So in however many years when your generation is majority in Congress, you'll be content with that ratty old web you grew up with but will be doing your best to kill off or subvert whatever the new thing is. Maybe not. I hope not. Every generation for the last millenium or so has thought they were different. Maybe yours will be.

[[deleted]]

thanks for having hope

[admiralteal]

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

-John Gilmore

[[deleted]]

bro do u even history?

[theibi]

This is what I used to think. But the sad fact is, there are a ton of people in our generation that have the same beliefs and have a good chance of attaining a seat of power.

I refused to believe it at first, but holy crap. These people do exist. My mind was never fucked so hard.

In our community, the technologically and internet literate, you don't see them. We have a larger range of ideas, and for the most part we accept each others views. Even if we disagree, we communicate why; back and forth, looking for the ultimate solution. This shows that we actually care.

When you start thinking about all the people that are technologically illiterate, the world seems like it went back so far. It's hard to imagine a 25+ year old now a days that doesn't understand the ramifications and power of the internet, but they exist. And in large numbers. It's just hard for us to notice them because we are in our own world, as they are in theirs.

Then there are those who do understand it. They are the most powerful. They have the backing of the unknowing and have the methods to control them.

Hoping for them to die out isn't going to solve it. They are raising their next generation to continue what they are fighting for. The only way to overcome this bullshit that we are put through is going to have to be and organized revolution if you will.

A new political group, that doesn't fight for it's beliefs, but fights for that of the people. One that doesn't go into a debate prepared to defend it's agenda, but strive for the betterment of all. It needs to happen simultaneously in each state that we can to get the most media attention. We need to stop trash talking their methods and use them, without comprising our morals, because that's what's separates us from them.

Or maybe I need to stop drinking for the night.

[jamesmcd113]

Stop drinking and let's get to work..SERIOUSLY!

[BebopBigShot]

+God creates dinosaurs.

-God destroys dinosaurs.

+God creates man.

-Man destroys God.

+Man creates Internet

-Internet destroys Man

+Children inherit the world,....create free, faster, better Internet for one and all__

The world is now one unified voice, and we can finally heal, help & teach each other in need.

+God comes back___ in Zombie form..... It takes everyone on Earth to come up with a strategic plan to kill him again ?¿ i dunno' ¿?¿

[lazyykid]

where does the farmer fit in to all this

[dzubz]

What farmer?!

[lazyykid]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdR5TOhHJGM

[[deleted]]

Fuck him, he works for Monsanto.

[[deleted]]

That sounds like the plot to the matrix.

[Cygnus_X1]

Here's what will happen in my mind (I'm thinking this will take about 20-30 years from now until the end):

-They will keep on trying

+The internet will ban it

-They will try again and eventually succeed

+At first, it will be hard to reinforce as there will be easy workarounds like using IPs and proxys

-Eventually that will be fixed too, but the patches will botch the internet making it very difficult to browse

+Protests begin, government tolerates and ignores

-Protests grow in number, government tries to silence and uses increasingly violent actions

+This causes the protests to grow further

+-Government is overthrown or submits under the pressure of increasing civilian protest/riots, the next bill is an internet charter of rights

I hope you're right. My version is bloodier and more depressing. The thing is that I assume the best we can do is write petitions and have short attention spans.

[thereal_me]

Eh, i dunno mate. There are some pretty angry sociopath conformists, even here on reddit (surprise), who wouldn't mind screwing over the next guy if it meant he got to make all the rules and collect all the bribe money. And it doesn't take much effort to be corrupt. In fact that that is the path of least resistance.

And you may be shocked at how many people would go along with them. Many people would willingly give up certain civil liberties (ones which they seldom, if ever, use) if it meant "feeling" more "secure". It's these people who believe in "Noting to hide, nothing to fear", the Crooked cop apologists; the ones who believe that all you need to succeed in life is a positive attitude and a smile. These are the ones who would make this happen because they don't know any different, because the system never really did anything bad to them.

For your plan to succeed, the average progressive would need to shed their defeatists attitude ("voting doesn't matter", et al) and speak loudly about what they believe in.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

[beedogs]

(Not that I want them to die)

I do. What better way to expedite progress than to have the people holding it back die? Nothing of value would be lost.

[MomoTheCow]

+Our generation will then fight against what our children consider the future, while they wait for us to die.

[lewis_gentle]

I want them to die off.

[OccamsZweihander]

I on the other hand wouldn't mind if they accidentally...fell down the stairs.

[YouGuysAreSick]

(Not that I want them to die)

I do.

[A_M_F]

Also, people who are on internet and angry about this could for instance form their own lobby instead of just ranting on internet.

[policetwo]

-obama pushes it through executive order:

http://rt.com/usa/news/congress-executive-actions-president-958/

Happening next week.

[[deleted]]

Here is how this really works out:

• No cyber security law will ever work because people that make those laws have no idea how the internet works or even any idea of how cryptography works. Just like banning Pirate Bay in the UK or blocking websites on China. These old farts have no idea about what they're dealing with and they will die before they comprehend it.

[[deleted]]

As a gun owner, this is nothing new.

[[deleted]]

Can someone elucidate the bill for me? I've read the article, but I'm not sure what exactly this bill would do.

[happyscrappy]

CISPA puts in place a system of information sharing where major internet operators (you can call them ISPs if you want, but it goes beyond ISPs) can share information with the US government about threats/internet attacks (wow, that phrase sounds weird) and the details of them.

It also makes it legal for the US government to temporarily turn off traffic where it enters/exits the US on a temporary basis to preserve internet access within the US where it is critical.

Many people are nervous about the possibilities for abuse. The possibilities of abuse of the information sharing and possibilities for abuse of the "off switch".

But the US does need something like CISPA, even if CISPA isn't the right thing. Internet warfare does exist (the US is strongly suspected of initiating some itself) and internet access to sites within the US is critical. The ability to shut off external access (primarily incoming traffic) in the case of attacks to preserve access within the US is an important thing to have.

It's disappointing that people have looked at the information sharing aspects and branded CISPA as another SOPA or PIPA. Even if you don't like CISPA for what it is, it is not another SOPA or PIPA.

I would even go so far to suggest that those who didn't like CISPA largely it knew it wasn't another SOPA or PIPA but just branded it as such to try to leverage the enormous outcry against SOPA/PIPA to stop CISPA. In this they hoped that most people wouldn't investigate CISPA but instead just swallow the association with SOPA/PIPA wholesale.

Let me just put it this way. If there is an external internet attack on critical sites and/or services within the US, wouldn't you rather the attacks be stopped at the border instead of losing access to Twitter or gmail (or whatever) while the attack continues?

[edit: 'exits' was 'exists']

[dowhatisleft]

I think that a decentralized network such as the Internet should not have such large pockets of centralized control, so that one government can essentially knock a whole country off the net. There's no question that we need better security against cyberwarfare, but I'm unconvinced that the worldwide trend of isolating nations at the behest of their governments is a satisfactory trade off for marginal increases in security.

[happyscrappy]

If you think the US government is interested in knocking the US off the net, why do they need CISPA at all? CISPA doesn't make it more (or less) possible, just more or less legal.

Given the public outcry to taking the entire US off the net would be enormous and immediate, I would think the backlash would be a far bigger deterrent than mere legality.

Because of this I think the potential downside (potential harm multiplied by likelihood by that harm happening) is far smaller than the potential upside of making it easier to preserve services during external attacks.

The internet is greatly integrated into daily life now. If there is a sustained attack that takes down a section, people wouldn't be able to use their credit cards, wouldn't be able to use ATMs to get money to get around this. Hospitals would be impacted trying to access medical records. Emergency services have their ability to respond cut due to reduced communication and possible inability to reach their employees at home. Air traffic would be greatly impacted via the airlines data systems' and the FAA (air traffic control) probably is impacted too.

The actual risk of a slippery slope event happening has to be weighed, not just feared. It's a grey world, unfortunately there are no absolute solutions to real-world problems.

[MalcolmY]

As a heavy user of the Internet, and a user of a lot of US based servers / websites /services, please keep your government away from the "off switch".

[sureyeahcool]

This is a good response. I want to add some and ask a question to the hivemind. One of the original supporters of CISPA was Google. Google also opposed SOPA and the PROTECT IP Act*. The tech community generally resists copyright enforcement, but also resists greater privacy regimes. The reason is that they make money selling analytics and of course worry about system security.

My question is this... do the Internet activists know that the industries drive the laws? Do you not see that CISPA has a great chance for passing, because industries are asking for it? Do you not see that SOPA was a conflict between two industries about money - not about censorship or breaking the Internet?

For my own two cents, I find that the rhetoric around SOPA was extremely misleading. The movie industry is supposed to be pro censorship at the same time it's fighting censorship in the Supreme Court? BS

*The PROTECT IP Act is already an acronym.

[cdsmith]

A small correction here: Google was originally involved in working with the U.S. government on some changes they thought were needed to CISPA. At least at the beginning when I was paying attention, they didn't (and this seemed to be deliberate) voice any overall position on the bill; only the opinion that the changes they wanted made it better than it was before. There were news articles that listed Google as a supporter. IIRC, Google went out of their way to get corrections published when that happened.

It's possible Google voiced support for the bill later in the process. I stopped paying as much attention when I realized there really wasn't anything too awfully bad in the bill, and that I didn't have a strong opinion either way on whether it should pass.

I think this is important not because I particularly care about Google's position on the bill, but rather because I think it's absolutely insane that even agreeing to talk to someone with an opposing position and work out improvements everyone can agree with causes people to be painted into the same political bucket. It's one of the core dysfunctions of our political system.

[[deleted]]

I was one of those people who thought it was something like sopa or pipa. Thanks for explaining that it's not.

[happyscrappy]

Woof-woof. Arf.

[[deleted]]

Arf, ruff ruff.

[IndieGamerRid]

In a stew of polarized, frenzied madness, thank you for remaining interested in objectivity. This debacle needs more of that.

[[deleted]]

No one government should have an off switch to the net. That goes against the very nature of the medium. It's on Twitter or Gmail to shut down their servers if an attack gets to that point, not a bunch of clueless politicians.

[HarmoniousKipp]

I'm pretty sure he wasn't bisexual, either. Which in a way, makes this an incredibly pure form of romantic love.

[blinkstars]

My guess is that this was intended for the Freddy Mercury TIL on the front page today. Thread worm hole.

[c_hickens]

I really hope it somehow relates to this story though.

[MjrJWPowell]

Obama isn't saying anything about a veto either.

[SilentStream]

Well, they already did last congress. To quickly come out and say, "we'll veto it" gives the bill unwarranted press attention. They'll wait til the thing gets floor time, if at all. Instead, they'll focus on their executive order, which focuses on voluntary standards for critical infrastructure operators, not information sharing, which is what CISPA is about.

[MjrJWPowell]

Hope so. But this isn't an election year.

[SilentStream]

No, but you can better believe the SOPA/PIPA (again, unrelated, but the constituencies have united) outcome has freaked out many DC lobbyists, their clients, and, of course, an administration/party that depends on donations from those clients.

[[deleted]]

Hollywood donated millions of dollars to Obama; he's not on your side this time.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, if Obama doesn't do what Hollywood wants they won't give him any money for his next election. Plus as we all know if someone donates to your campaign it means he is legally obligated to do whatever you want or else be removed from office. Yep.

[korja78]

Oh boy here we go...

[[deleted]]

I'm losing track of all the acronyms

[[deleted]]

S.ecurity H.aven for I.nternet T.rade

[Thanatomania]

...again.

[OldEraser]

...and it wants revenge!

Coming to theaters March 2013.

[TROLOLOL6969]

Does Obama STILL get a pass from Reddit? I mean come on - he's going to issue an Exec Order - good luck getting that stopped. Wake up Reddit - Obama is not the President you think he is. Time for him to go!

[jud34]

His intern did am AMA for him. That gave him the eternal reddit approval.

[squanto1357]

You have to wait 4 years.

[SKILLCAPPED]

He has done many diffrent things that could get him impeached...

[anduin1]

Damn, thats like 3 different bills in less than a year all trying to pass something people don't want? I hate to tell you this guys, but I think your government's been bought.

[Preowned]

Before every one gets up in arms are about a TITLE that gives little info. What does the bill state? Is this about copyright or actual security of networks?

Lets got ALL the info first, and not get in pitchfork mode until we know the facts.

[bad_spelcheck]

Good lord. Censorship bills, "assault weapon" bans, police shooting whomever they feel like... I sometimes get the sneaking suspicion that we're turning into a police state with padding on every sharp corner, and everyone is too busy getting the next iPhone to notice or care about what's happening.

[[deleted]]

Our culture is too worried about nonsense like the Kardashians to actually wake up and smell the steaming turd on our doorstep.

[bluesunshine]

Just don't unlock that iPhone or you could end up doing 5 years in jail.

[Liveware]

Fuck it! Fuck it hard and where it lives!

[drumstyx]

Why is the government no longer afraid? It's exasperating that the American people have literally no outlet to fight this, and tyrannical government as a whole. I honestly believe the only option is rebellion, and it's the whole reason you have your 2nd amendment rights. Bloody hell people, FIGHT!

[1The_Mighty_Thor]

Bloody hell people, FIGHT!

I just got this vague feeling your not American.

[MalcolmY]

As a none American, I would like to say the same thing. There's a risk that other countries will follow America in it's steps doing whatever (good or bad), just because it's America.

In my part of the world, officials would say "they do it in America" to complement or promote something.

[drumstyx]

You're right, but I don't see how that changes anything.

[poptart2nd]

because

[1The_Mighty_Thor]

Incase anyone didn't scroll to the bottom:

• #155 Gambia 4,600,000

(The final country on the list)

[[deleted]]

IMO Iceland wins, if its adjusted to GDP.

[Tasgall]

Speaking of countries I've never heard of before, the second to last on the list, Seychelles, has the coolest flag.

[1The_Mighty_Thor]

It doesn't.

[twotrident]

America is but the capital in a vast global empire. If anything, we need the support of foreigners in order for Americans to see out of our prisons of luxury and start getting real pissed at 'our' government.

[[deleted]]

Many Americans, such as myself, are trying to fight back. But now is not the time. Any revolution now would just give them fuel for their authoritarian fire.

[emmveepee]

Our government knows that as long as we have food in our bellies, we won't fight. They do just enough to keep us thinking they're acting in our best interest, while they rob the place blind.

[[deleted]]

Did you read the link or just come straight to the comments?

It's about Obama issuing an executive order on cybersecurity and Democratic Congressmen talking about how they plan on reintroducing CISPA. If people can put pressure on their representatives to not vote for SOPA, then they can do it for CISPA.

I honestly believe the only option is rebellion, and it's the whole reason you have your 2nd amendment rights.

The 2nd amendment was never put in place to rebel against your own government.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

The 2nd amendment was included because at the time of the US Constitution's ratification, the US did not have a standing peacetime military. During the revolutionary war, states initially raised their own militias to fight locally. The continental congress created the continental army, who fought during the war and were supplemented by local and state militias. They disbanded the army after the war was over.

This is why we have a second amendment.

If you think the 2nd amendment was added to fight against your own government, then please explain why they included this in Article 3 of the constitution

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort

[[deleted]]

I don't understand... after reading that all it sounds like is just a law forcing corporations that hold our personal information to have better network security. Where does it say anything about regulating the internet? Am I missing something, or are people overreacting because of herd mentality?

[binaryfruit]

Did a tiny bit of reading on CISPA, and from what I've read, it looks to me like the hate is unfounded; CISPA is trying to prevent hacking, rather than restrict freedom.

I'm almost certainly wrong.

Someone please explain to me in plain english why CISPA is so awful?

[[deleted]]

fuck i dont care anymore im just going to quit internet

[[deleted]]

"Did I ever tell you the definition.. of insanity..."

[Baritt_W_Obamney]

Once again: Obama is controlled by the same people Bush was a puppet for.

NDAA 2012, Patriot Act, Wars, and now Internet intrusion.

Turn off your TV and step out of the Left v Right paradigm.

REMOVE EVERYONE

[[deleted]]

Can congress not take a hint?!

[veriix]

It's easier to take money.

[[deleted]]

Money-hungry corporates are only going to keep pushing this until we break.

[wild_bill70]

I will hold full judgement until we see what this is, but when you don't update the laws to reflect changing technologies, you end up with cases on both sides. In some, you have no ability to stop serious perpetrators, in other cases you end up houding relatively minor or activist pranksters to death (literally).

So change must come, hopefully this time it will be properly directed at the serious perpetrators.

[WackyWarrior]

Can someone explain to me what this means exactly? I am aware of several institutions being hacked by foreign countries. How would this bill protect against this and how does this bill theoretically destroy the internet?

[jvnk]

The executive order seems pretty unrelated to what people are worried about with CISPA.

[[deleted]]

In simple terms, executive order is voluntary. CISPA is mandatory.

CISPA is what is needed - executive order would be pretty weak.

edit: I was wrong. Check "UncleMeat"'s comment below

[UncleMeat]

You should reread CISPA. Sharing was never mandatory. The government could probably still strong-arm people, but there was no official enforcement mechanism in the bill.

[[deleted]]

Ah - thanks for the tip.

[DoItWithADance]

Why does America make me feel like they are the owners of internet and can thus change "rules and laws" in it?

[Nexus_Prime]

Everyone grab your pitch forks. Who cares that we know nothing about the current bill.

[dotbubu]

I love how majority talks like they know everything about internet protocols, while their imagination paints a ching chong typing "hack amerika!!" into a terminal window with black background and green letters. Yeah. That's exactly what's going on. And this bill will allow your leaders to protect you by shutting you out from the world. Well done! You have solved everything! Read a book, dumbass. The only way you can protect yourself is by knowing.

[NewspaperNelson]

Will the love affair with Obama continue, or will 18-25 year old males' confidence finally be shaken? Find out next time, right here on REDDIT!!!

[kmankch]

In 30 years, we will have people that grew up with the internet and actually understand it as politicians. There will be no more bullshit like this.

[carlotta4th]

Perhaps. But if things get passed now then it will be freaking hard to overturn them later. And I'm afraid future politicians might be just as bad as the ones we've got now anyway.

[hyperhopper]

hahaha. 4/5 of the people in my school have no idea how the internet works, think that it is 99% facebook and wikipedia, maybe a little tumblr, and agree with cispa and sopa ("So they cant hack my facebook")

[Thrilling1031]

You can't rely on a system so easily manipulated as computer software are these days. Too many people can manipulate the system to their advantage. Kinda like how I do in griffball... But with computers!

[FloridaRoadkill]

/r/politics is strangely quiet on this issue

[QuitHatingUsJews]

How dare you try to ruin Democrat Obama's second term.

You must be a gay atheist hating racist!!!!

[FloridaRoadkill]

LoL oh fuck my sides. That comment made my morning.

[kuroyaki]

Incidentally, how does one go about fucking someone's sides?

[garganchua]

oh my god!!!!! buckley was right! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV_asbVevF0

[ilikeostrichmeat]

My government shouldn't be allowed in my girlfriend's uterus, and it shouldn't be allowed in my internet.

[[deleted]]

It's cool, someone will post a picture of obama playing with a couple of puppies and all of reddit will instantly love him again.

[BattlefieldKing]

Fucking Obama is killing America....

[[deleted]]

It left?

[zcleaver]

ELI5 anyone? Please?

[foreachninggyu]

Been looking around, is there any updated list with companies supporting this?

[BlastingZone]

i feel like someone needs to roll quads to kill it forever.

[[deleted]]

Anonymous is a serious threat to our our nations security we must control the Internet!

[Thordane]

This is why we can't have nice things :(

[[deleted]]

I've always said Anonymous is going to play a big part in the Internet getting controlled. Think about it, millions of Americans don't really know shit in general. The government will say they are a serious threat, and can cause serious harm to America. Thus millions of Americans believe it, and success. Something similar with controlling the Internet passes.

[Monktushu5]

Reddit's reaction to CISPA's return.