Let's not forget companies such as Google which actually lobbied for CISPA. They had the huge blackout for SOPA since it threatens their business plan, but they are in the business of collecting data so supported CISPA.
I was really surprised by the lack of cynicism surrounding the SOPA blackout. Yes it was in the public good, but it was merely a coincidence that what was good for Google happened to align with what was good for everyone else.
Current US politics is like watching a television program were you root for one team or another, you may feel excited when 'your team' wins but your participation will always limited to that of spectating. The analogy breaks down because in our case we also live in the television.
Honestly, when are you going to quit believing companies like Google are out there to protect your interests? You're completely right, they were against SOPA because it would have been a huge threat to their business, while CISPA could protect their interests so they were all for it.
Why is any of that surprising? They're a company, not a charity. The entity that's supposed to protect its people is the government. If they aren't doing their job then complain about them. Google is doing exactly what is expected of a company: Making money, growing, and moving their own business forward.
I read the article, what does it mean when they say: "A Google spokeswoman said that although the company is lobbying on the bill, it has not taken a public position."
Just lawyer speak?
Also many of those firmly in support of the CISPA bill seems to be the same old usual suspects: Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon.
The article makes it clear that Google doesn't have a position, but they were involved in the discussion. SOPA had no Internet companies in on the discussion so this seems like a major improvement to me.
Can someone give a short, accurate explanation of what CISPA is about and how it's a threat?
Unlike SOPA, where there was plenty of accurate information about why it was bad, I can't figure out what's going on with CISPA. For instance, reading the Wikipedia page it doesn't seem there's any obligation for companies to share information, nor a right to break privacy policies they couldn't earlier.
So it's entirely unclear to me why my privacy is threatened. I'm pro-privacy but I want to know what there is to be worried about.
If you're wondering why Ron Paul didn't vote, he didn't have a chance because the vote was abruptly moved up a day in advance and rushed through while he was campaigning in Texas.
I am absolutely floored. The sun rises in the west and sets in the east. My Congressman (Schiff) did something right. I will reward him with small campaign contribution and a thank-you letter.
A pat on the back and a monetary reward for not fucking up?! even through it ultimately didn't matter? it's amazing how low the bar is set for politicians.
Not surprised to see Amash on the No vote. (He is voluntarily leading a drive to increase Congress transparency by explaining every vote on Facebook/Twitter. https://www.facebook.com/repjustinamash) Regarding CISPA he said: "I voted 'no' on CISPA. The bill passed 248-168, but my amendment to protect library, tax, gun, educational, and medical records also passed 415-0."
However, I am rather surprised to Issa on the Aye vote. He was one of the few members that actively worked against SOPA while it was still in committee. His Twitter bio (@darrellissa) says he enjoys "an #OPEN, accessible & uncensored internet."
I hate to generalize, but (I'm about to anyway) all my old representatives (dem or repub) voted Aye. You'd think that old people would enjoy some sort of anonymity. However, if is this being sold as a counter-terrorism method I could see why they'd vote for it.
I think the problem is that the "old" people just don't understand the bills. Call it Counter-terrorism, or anti-child-porn and you've got people signing because having a " nay" on a loosely languaged bill probably means fodder for attack ads down the road.
"Congressman [x] voted NO on stopping cyber terrorism"
My rep pulled support for SOPA at the last possible second, and only after public out cry. I sent him a letter thanking him for actually listening to his constituents, but kindly asked for him to resign. If these people don't understand the technology they're being asked to regulate, they should be replaced by those who do.
Interesting, I didn't realize that recording votes wasn't done regularly in a number of major democracies. While looking for more information I dug up this book chapter on the subject, and it looks like practices vary a lot more than I'd thought: http://www.uni-potsdam.de/db/vergleich/Publikationen/Parliam... (PDF).
[+] [-] itg|14 years ago|reply
So much for their "Do No Evil" bull.
http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/223069-g...
[+] [-] Homunculiheaded|14 years ago|reply
Current US politics is like watching a television program were you root for one team or another, you may feel excited when 'your team' wins but your participation will always limited to that of spectating. The analogy breaks down because in our case we also live in the television.
[+] [-] firefoxman1|14 years ago|reply
Why is any of that surprising? They're a company, not a charity. The entity that's supposed to protect its people is the government. If they aren't doing their job then complain about them. Google is doing exactly what is expected of a company: Making money, growing, and moving their own business forward.
[+] [-] gillianseed|14 years ago|reply
Just lawyer speak?
Also many of those firmly in support of the CISPA bill seems to be the same old usual suspects: Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon.
[+] [-] vibrunazo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lonnyk|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yuhong|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|14 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] cynicalkane|14 years ago|reply
Unlike SOPA, where there was plenty of accurate information about why it was bad, I can't figure out what's going on with CISPA. For instance, reading the Wikipedia page it doesn't seem there's any obligation for companies to share information, nor a right to break privacy policies they couldn't earlier.
So it's entirely unclear to me why my privacy is threatened. I'm pro-privacy but I want to know what there is to be worried about.
[+] [-] mrschwabe|14 years ago|reply
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insani...
[+] [-] guelo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philiphodgen|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] capo|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drostie|14 years ago|reply
http://drostie.org/votes-HR-3523.json
[+] [-] joshuahedlund|14 years ago|reply
However, I am rather surprised to Issa on the Aye vote. He was one of the few members that actively worked against SOPA while it was still in committee. His Twitter bio (@darrellissa) says he enjoys "an #OPEN, accessible & uncensored internet."
[+] [-] snowwrestler|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emehrkay|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] goostavos|14 years ago|reply
"Congressman [x] voted NO on stopping cyber terrorism"
My rep pulled support for SOPA at the last possible second, and only after public out cry. I sent him a letter thanking him for actually listening to his constituents, but kindly asked for him to resign. If these people don't understand the technology they're being asked to regulate, they should be replaced by those who do.
[+] [-] briandoll|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aw3c2|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjn|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] silverlight|14 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nhebb|14 years ago|reply