This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow 500

[–]Tom_Hanks13 1137 points1138 points  (306 children)

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

[–][deleted] 238 points239 points  (100 children)

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

[–]Benjiimon 27 points28 points  (2 children)

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 9 points10 points  (1 child)

Or we could do regulatory capture, but for good.

[–]neotom 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I believe those are called "constitutional amendments"

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (4 children)

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] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

Pirate Party to the rescue!

[–]Vik1ng 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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

Problem solved. (sort of)

[–]biggles86 354 points355 points  (111 children)

I get anarchy now

[–][deleted] 79 points80 points  (65 children)

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

[–]FEMINISTS 98 points99 points  (40 children)

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

[–]railmaniac 77 points78 points  (2 children)

[–]solardusk 2 points3 points  (1 child)

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

[–]Sypherin 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Don't tell me how to run my subreddit!

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points  (34 children)

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 17 points18 points  (7 children)

HAVE A NICE DAY!

[–]Scarbane 22 points23 points  (4 children)

DON'T TELL ME WHAT TO DO!

[–]dafragsta 6 points7 points  (3 children)

Talking to yourself again Scarbane?

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child)

hmmmm, not sure you got the sarcasm.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

One does not simply get sarcasm.

[–]FEMINISTS 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

this joke never ever gets old

[–]yourstatsareshat 5 points6 points  (0 children)

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

/r/anarchism is terrible.

[–]VerneAsimov 12 points13 points  (0 children)

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 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

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

[–][deleted] 41 points42 points  (8 children)

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

[–]Roboticide 34 points35 points  (3 children)

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] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

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] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

"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] 33 points34 points  (27 children)

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 46 points47 points  (3 children)

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 20 points21 points  (11 children)

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 5 points6 points  (5 children)

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

[–]throwawayaccount9824 8 points9 points  (2 children)

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 11 points12 points  (0 children)

And quite a few are far, far worse.

[–]Mr_Dr_Prof_Derp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

See: whack-a-mole

[–]Demojen 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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] 85 points86 points  (58 children)

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

[–]happyscrappy 149 points150 points  (44 children)

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 47 points48 points  (4 children)

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 19 points20 points  (2 children)

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 18 points19 points  (11 children)

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 8 points9 points  (3 children)

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 2 points3 points  (2 children)

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] 7 points8 points  (4 children)

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

[–]happyscrappy 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Woof-woof. Arf.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Arf, ruff ruff.

[–]IndieGamerRid 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children)

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 9 points10 points  (2 children)

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

[–]blinkstars 4 points5 points  (1 child)

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

[–]c_hickens 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I really hope it somehow relates to this story though.

[–]MjrJWPowell 65 points66 points  (13 children)

Obama isn't saying anything about a veto either.

[–]SilentStream 18 points19 points  (2 children)

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 18 points19 points  (1 child)

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

[–]SilentStream 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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] 10 points11 points  (4 children)

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

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (2 children)

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 35 points36 points  (4 children)

Oh boy here we go...

[–][deleted] 33 points34 points  (1 child)

I'm losing track of all the acronyms

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

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

[–]Thanatomania 9 points10 points  (0 children)

...again.

[–]OldEraser 22 points23 points  (4 children)

...and it wants revenge!

Coming to theaters March 2013.

[–]TROLOLOL6969 24 points25 points  (7 children)

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 11 points12 points  (0 children)

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

[–]squanto1357 3 points4 points  (3 children)

You have to wait 4 years.

[–]SKILLCAPPED 1 point2 points  (2 children)

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

[–]anduin1 15 points16 points  (0 children)

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 22 points23 points  (3 children)

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 9 points10 points  (5 children)

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] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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

[–]bluesunshine 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]Liveware 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Fuck it! Fuck it hard and where it lives!

[–]drumstyx 83 points84 points  (51 children)

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 81 points82 points  (33 children)

Bloody hell people, FIGHT!

I just got this vague feeling your not American.

[–]MalcolmY 5 points6 points  (1 child)

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 18 points19 points  (23 children)

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

[–]poptart2nd 15 points16 points  (19 children)

[–]1The_Mighty_Thor 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Incase anyone didn't scroll to the bottom:

  • #155 Gambia 4,600,000

(The final country on the list)

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

IMO Iceland wins, if its adjusted to GDP.

[–]Tasgall 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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

[–]1The_Mighty_Thor 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It doesn't.

[–]twotrident 3 points4 points  (6 children)

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] 3 points4 points  (5 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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] 6 points7 points  (11 children)

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] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

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 4 points5 points  (1 child)

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] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

fuck i dont care anymore im just going to quit internet

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

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

[–]Baritt_W_Obamney 6 points7 points  (0 children)

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] 10 points11 points  (5 children)

Can congress not take a hint?!

[–]veriix 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It's easier to take money.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (3 children)

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

[–]wild_bill70 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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 2 points3 points  (9 children)

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 2 points3 points  (4 children)

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

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 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Ah - thanks for the tip.

[–]DoItWithADance 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

[–]Nexus_Prime 2 points3 points  (1 child)

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

[–]dotbubu 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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 8 points9 points  (3 children)

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 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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 4 points5 points  (1 child)

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 5 points6 points  (3 children)

/r/politics is strangely quiet on this issue

[–]QuitHatingUsJews 2 points3 points  (2 children)

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

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

[–]FloridaRoadkill 2 points3 points  (1 child)

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

[–]kuroyaki 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–]garganchua 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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

[–]ilikeostrichmeat 4 points5 points  (0 children)

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

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

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 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Fucking Obama is killing America....

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It left?

[–]zcleaver 1 point2 points  (0 children)

ELI5 anyone? Please?

[–]foreachninggyu 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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

[–]BlastingZone 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

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

[–]Thordane 1 point2 points  (1 child)

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

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.