End of the 4th Ammendment - CISPA

User Forum Topic
Submitted by markmax33 on April 27, 2012 - 12:58pm

Look at what Obama and the Republicans are about to do to you. They are going to repeal the 4th ammendment without an ammendment to the constitution.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2012042...

"Basically this means CISPA can no longer be called a cybersecurity bill at all. The government would be able to search information it collects under CISPA for the purposes of investigating American citizens with complete immunity from all privacy protections as long as they can claim someone committed a "cybersecurity crime". Basically it says the 4th Amendment does not apply online, at all. Moreover, the government could do whatever it wants with the data as long as it can claim that someone was in danger of bodily harm, or that children were somehow threatened—again, notwithstanding absolutely any other law that would normally limit the government's power."

How could anybody vote for Obama or the republicans when they are stealing your liberties?

Submitted by harvey on April 27, 2012 - 1:17pm.

dup

Submitted by harvey on April 27, 2012 - 1:18pm.

So did Obama sign the bill?

Or are you just making stuff up again?

Submitted by JPJones on April 27, 2012 - 1:31pm.

pri_dk wrote:
So did Obama sign the bill?

Or are you just making stuff up again?

He's just making stuff up again.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/2012042...

Submitted by markmax33 on April 27, 2012 - 1:36pm.

JPJones wrote:
pri_dk wrote:
So did Obama sign the bill?

Or are you just making stuff up again?

He's just making stuff up again.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120425/12445718657/obama-administration-threatens-to-veto-cispa.shtml

Are you all seriously doubting he will sign this? He said he didn't support the NDAA which stripped your right to a trial and he signed that too, "against his best judgement". He will sign this thing I'll bet anything.

Submitted by CA renter on April 27, 2012 - 1:41pm.

Who signed the Patriot Act?

IMHO, this was the beginning of the end as far as privacy rights are concerned. It never should have happened.

Submitted by SD Realtor on April 27, 2012 - 2:13pm.

I agree CAR.

We should blame all of this on BUSH!

Submitted by JPJones on April 27, 2012 - 2:31pm.

markmax33 wrote:
JPJones wrote:
pri_dk wrote:
So did Obama sign the bill?

Or are you just making stuff up again?

He's just making stuff up again.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120425/12445718657/obama-administration-threatens-to-veto-cispa.shtml

Are you all seriously doubting he will sign this? He said he didn't support the NDAA which stripped your right to a trial and he signed that too, "against his best judgement". He will sign this thing I'll bet anything.

That is a poor example considering the version of NDAA that Obama signed, which included several consessions added because of his initial veto threat, passed through both houses of congress veto-proof. Here are a couple of articles if you are interested in learning more:

http://crooksandliars.com/karoli/confuse...

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/12/ndaa-...

The point is that even if the bill does get signed, it will likely not be in its current form.

EDIT: Also, Bush's fault.

Submitted by harvey on April 27, 2012 - 2:43pm.

markmax33 wrote:
He said he didn't support the NDAA which stripped your right to a trial and he signed that too, "against his best judgement". He will sign this thing I'll bet anything.

You don't have a good track record here for honoring your wagers.

But you do realize that the NDAA is the bill that authorizes the entire defense budget?

Not so easy to just say "no" to that one.

CISPA is a little different, as it is not attached to any existing programs.

BTW, did Ron Paul vote to authorize the defense budget, or did he vote to let our troops in the field run out of ammo?

Submitted by JPJones on April 27, 2012 - 2:52pm.

pri_dk wrote:
markmax33 wrote:
He said he didn't support the NDAA which stripped your right to a trial and he signed that too, "against his best judgement". He will sign this thing I'll bet anything.

You don't have a good track record here for honoring your wagers.

But you do realize that the NDAA is the bill that authorizes the entire defense budget?

Not so easy to just say "no" to that one.

CISPA is a little different, as it is not attached to any existing programs.

BTW, did Ron Paul vote to authorize the defense budget, or did he vote to let our troops in the field run out of ammo?

Neither. Apparently, Ron Paul didn't vote on the bill at all.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

Submitted by markmax33 on April 27, 2012 - 3:24pm.

pri_dk wrote:
markmax33 wrote:
He said he didn't support the NDAA which stripped your right to a trial and he signed that too, "against his best judgement". He will sign this thing I'll bet anything.

You don't have a good track record here for honoring your wagers.

But you do realize that the NDAA is the bill that authorizes the entire defense budget?

Not so easy to just say "no" to that one.

CISPA is a little different, as it is not attached to any existing programs.

BTW, did Ron Paul vote to authorize the defense budget, or did he vote to let our troops in the field run out of ammo?

Ron Paul was running a presidential campaign and if his vote had mattered he would have been there. He stood up and berated Congress a million times on the provisions and his son stood up infront of Congress and had a historic speech.

Who cares what is attached to what bill. You take an outh of office to uphold the Constitution and you DO NOT VOTE FOR ANYTHING UNCONSTITUTIONAL. If there wasn't an epidimic of ignoring the Constitution that thing would have never made it to Obama's desk and we would be allowed a fair trial. Now we can go to jail in a foreign country without the right to a trial because of a suspicion. It is ridiculous anyone would sign that. How dare you defend anyone who signed that piece of legislation?

I'm calling it now - Obama signs it and claims he wishes he didn't have to do it. "There's too much important other stuff in there." May, 29 2012 - Obama

Submitted by markmax33 on April 27, 2012 - 3:17pm.

JPJones wrote:
pri_dk wrote:
markmax33 wrote:
He said he didn't support the NDAA which stripped your right to a trial and he signed that too, "against his best judgement". He will sign this thing I'll bet anything.

You don't have a good track record here for honoring your wagers.

But you do realize that the NDAA is the bill that authorizes the entire defense budget?

Not so easy to just say "no" to that one.

CISPA is a little different, as it is not attached to any existing programs.

BTW, did Ron Paul vote to authorize the defense budget, or did he vote to let our troops in the field run out of ammo?

Neither. Apparently, Ron Paul didn't vote on the bill at all.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2011/roll932.xml

No he was doing interviews for the campaign and actually talking about it in the media which was much more important:

12/14/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UMsbNVfuO4

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on April 27, 2012 - 3:33pm.

CA renter wrote:
Who signed the Patriot Act?

IMHO, this was the beginning of the end as far as privacy rights are concerned. It never should have happened.

CAR: I agree it should never have happened, but, sadly, our privacy rights and civil liberties have been under assault for decades now and BOTH parties are at fault.

You can go back to the "Red Scare" right after WWI, the "Nazi Scare" right before and during WWII, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and good, ole "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy and his bullshit for a good look at your civil liberties being shredded for nearly a century.

This is a good example of the "boiling frog" theory at work. Its been a slow, steady erosion and we still haven't awakened to the fact that the most precious right of all, individual liberty, is now fundamentally at risk.

Markmax: Its "amendment", not "ammendment."

Submitted by harvey on April 27, 2012 - 3:33pm.

markmax33 wrote:
Ron Paul was running a presidential campaign and if his vote had mattered he would have been there.

BREAKING NEWS:

Ron Paul refuses to provide funding to US combat forces.

US forces stationed in Afghanistan today faced a critical shortage of supplies due fact that congress has not yet passed a defense budget authorizing federal funds for ammunition and other protective equipment.

Ron Paul, who would not vote yes on the bill had this to say: "I believe in the Constitution, that's why I think they should die defending it." The congressman, who hasn't spent much time on Capital Hill lately, continued, saying that his vote "didn't matter anyway." and "I haven't accomplished anything as congressman, but make me president and I'll get things done."

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on April 27, 2012 - 4:01pm.

pri_dk wrote:
...on Capital Hill lately

"Capital Hill"? Is that anywhere near Capitol Hill?

Submitted by harvey on April 27, 2012 - 4:02pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
pri_dk wrote:
...on Capital Hill lately

"Capital Hill"? Is that anywhere near Capitol Hill?

Oh well. You won't find Ron Paul proposing any legislation on either "hill."

Submitted by harvey on April 27, 2012 - 4:09pm.

Speaking of congressmen, I was disappointed to learn that Issa voted in favor of CISPA. He has scored some points with me on his objection to SOPA, but he's back in the doghouse with me, big time.

At least he had the guts to actually vote.

Submitted by markmax33 on April 27, 2012 - 4:28pm.

pri_dk wrote:
Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
pri_dk wrote:
...on Capital Hill lately

"Capital Hill"? Is that anywhere near Capitol Hill?

Oh well. You won't find Ron Paul proposing any legislation on either "hill."

Not true he proposes several bills per year. Good try though, do some research.

Submitted by CA renter on April 27, 2012 - 10:38pm.

Allan from Fallbrook wrote:
CA renter wrote:
Who signed the Patriot Act?

IMHO, this was the beginning of the end as far as privacy rights are concerned. It never should have happened.

CAR: I agree it should never have happened, but, sadly, our privacy rights and civil liberties have been under assault for decades now and BOTH parties are at fault.

You can go back to the "Red Scare" right after WWI, the "Nazi Scare" right before and during WWII, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) and good, ole "Tailgunner" Joe McCarthy and his bullshit for a good look at your civil liberties being shredded for nearly a century.

This is a good example of the "boiling frog" theory at work. Its been a slow, steady erosion and we still haven't awakened to the fact that the most precious right of all, individual liberty, is now fundamentally at risk.

Markmax: Its "amendment", not "ammendment."

Agree, 100%.

I'm not a fan of either political party...don't like the party system at all, as a matter of fact. I'd prefer to vote for *individuals* with fully transparent and stellar track records, not parties. But that wouldn't allow the PTB to control the masses.

Submitted by paramount on April 28, 2012 - 12:08am.

Ok, so now the United States is a mild Fascist Police State (not really a stretch, and getting worse I suppose), the constitution has been trashed - we're no longer a truly free country.

We can talk about it on blogs (getting risky?), but really what else can be done?

On a side note, I hear the US just bought over 400 million rounds of 40 cal ammunition.

Submitted by paramount on April 28, 2012 - 12:12am.

My Work here is DoneMy Work here is Done

Submitted by CA renter on April 28, 2012 - 1:45am.

For those who haven't heard of it, yet:

"The Utah Data Center is a data storage facility being built for the National Security Agency that is designed to be a primary storage resource capable of storing data on the scale of yottabytes.[1] It is designed to capture "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”"[1] The planned structure is 1,000,000 square feet, and projected to cost $2,000,000,000 when finished in September 2013.[1] It is expected have a power demand of 65 megawatts, costing about $40,000,000 per year.[1] It is located on Camp Williams, near Bluffdale, Utah."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_...

Submitted by markmax33 on April 28, 2012 - 11:10am.

paramount wrote:
Ok, so now the United States is a mild Fascist Police State (not really a stretch, and getting worse I suppose), the constitution has been trashed - we're no longer a truly free country.

We can talk about it on blogs (getting risky?), but really what else can be done?

On a side note, I hear the US just bought over 400 million rounds of 40 cal ammunition.

We better talk about it before we aren't allowed to talk anymore!

Submitted by paramount on April 28, 2012 - 2:35pm.

CA renter wrote:
For those who haven't heard of it, yet:

"The Utah Data Center is a data storage facility being built for the National Security Agency that is designed to be a primary storage resource capable of storing data on the scale of yottabytes.[1] It is designed to capture "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”"[1] The planned structure is 1,000,000 square feet, and projected to cost $2,000,000,000 when finished in September 2013.[1] It is expected have a power demand of 65 megawatts, costing about $40,000,000 per year.[1] It is located on Camp Williams, near Bluffdale, Utah."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Even Orwell Himself wouldn't have dreamed of this...or did he?

Submitted by CA renter on April 28, 2012 - 4:46pm.

It is rather creepy, isn't it?

Submitted by Allan from Fallbrook on April 28, 2012 - 5:50pm.

CA renter wrote:
It is rather creepy, isn't it?

CAR: Yup. Especially when you ask yourself one question: What "benefits" does a facility like this bring you as an ordinary citizen?

Remember Ben Franklin's admonition about security versus liberty: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

We no longer have a free and objective press, instead we have a corporate owned and corporatized media and a political class so beholden to the money that elected them (Republicans and Democrats both) that our rights and liberties are now no longer relevant.

I'm sure the NSA ("No Such Agency", "Never Say Anything") will come up with all sorts of good "reasons" to have such a facility, such as the "War on Terror", the Chinese, the Iranians, etc, but it's real function is the acquisition and USE of such information against the very people it is supposed to "protect".

Gitmo remains open and operating, warrantless wiretapping is still alive and well, as is extraordinary rendition to "black houses" around the world and targeted assassinations of US citizens.

Yeah, Orwell envisioned exactly this and he wasn't talking about Stalin's Soviet state.

You think it can't happen here? It already has.

"Liberty is freedom from coercion."

Submitted by flu on April 28, 2012 - 7:32pm.

paramount wrote:
CA renter wrote:
For those who haven't heard of it, yet:

"The Utah Data Center is a data storage facility being built for the National Security Agency that is designed to be a primary storage resource capable of storing data on the scale of yottabytes.[1] It is designed to capture "all forms of communication, including the complete contents of private emails, cell phone calls, and Google searches, as well as all sorts of personal data trails—parking receipts, travel itineraries, bookstore purchases, and other digital “pocket litter.”"[1] The planned structure is 1,000,000 square feet, and projected to cost $2,000,000,000 when finished in September 2013.[1] It is expected have a power demand of 65 megawatts, costing about $40,000,000 per year.[1] It is located on Camp Williams, near Bluffdale, Utah."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utah_Data_Center

Even Orwell Himself wouldn't have dreamed of this...or did he?

...And yet people have no qualms sharing every intimate and personal details about their life on facebook, myspace, linkedin, twitter, etc,etc,etc..

You know the government is dumb... It would have been cheaper and more efficient form the government just to have bought facebook, myspace, and linkedin, twitter, etc... In that case, people wouldn't be so adamant about divulging their personal data to complete strangers and the concerns over privacy wouldn't have been an issue !

And before we get into huffy about this... I'm sure it's pretty easy to piece together almost anyone online these days... Because most everyone puts everything on social media without thinking first about the consequences of voluntarily surrendering their privacy... And please don't challenge me to make a point....Because I'm sure a lot of you I could piece together who you are with a few clicks away.

Because a lot folks don't care when it's marketed as social media....But the information out there is equally as "private" as folks want to make it out to be....

I'll give you an example...

Mistake #1: A lot of folks sign up from blogs..The end up using the same login handle as some social media like myspace of facebook. So if you punch in the login handle on a blog into google, chances are immediately there's a match on myspace/facebook/twitter/etc.

Mistake #2: Providing pictures and actual identifying information on social media that is public visible..

The same people then end up posting a picture of themselves on social media. Some go as far as even put in their current location, their previous location, and where they went to school and what they do and and did, along with a real name...

So complete strangers now know what you look like, where you live (roughly), even your education and maybe your employment history...

Mistake #3: Same person ends up using same name/handle on something like LinkedIn... And furthermore does the baffoon thing by making the career profile publicly visible so that it can be searched for on google or some other indexing website...

Great, now some complete stranger has relatively your complete employment history more or less, and possibly even who your colleagues and friends are...

And in case you have a common name like "John Smith", no worries, because chances that person was baffoon enough to enter where they work, on both socially media websites so that you have a matching linkedin profile with a matching facebook/myspace/twitter profile....

Mistake#4: Now with all this data, someone can go to one of the personal record search services...Like intellius.com, etc, punch in person's name, occupation,etc, and probably get a list of addresses (current or past) because obviously, one didn't opt opt of a bunch of mailing lists/phone numbers/etc...

#5: Throw in a couple of publicly visible pictures, and then run them through online facial recognition software to reverse looks up pictures to online identity, then a complete stranger uncovers picasa/shutterfly/etc accounts, and then if the person has publicly visible tags, reverse lookup who/whom his/her contacts are...

And then the fun begins for a real good con artist....Because it's a field day to start social engineering maybe not you directly but one of your friends or distance acquittance and gradually work your way into a closer circle.

Oh, and by the way. Don't worry about making some of your profiles private once it was out their publicly visible to everyone. Because if you do it after it was already publicly visible, chances are google/yahoo or some other website has already indexed and cached the public version of your private information, so someone can still get to it.

But hey... While we really care about government easedropping on our phone sex calls to our significant others, Social media and web 2.0 is really cool!

Submitted by flu on April 28, 2012 - 7:02pm.

paramount wrote:
My Work here is DoneMy Work here is Done

rotflao

Submitted by CA renter on April 28, 2012 - 10:40pm.

Good post, flu.

While it's nearly impossible these days to keep one's information totally private, intentionally putting private information online is borderline crazy, IMHO.

Though it's "conspiracy thinking," I think social media has been intentionally used to get people accustomed to giving up their privacy rights.

Submitted by harvey on April 29, 2012 - 7:28am.

flu wrote:
...And yet people have no qualms sharing every intimate and personal details about their life on facebook, myspace, linkedin, twitter, etc,etc,etc..

But BG keeps asking me about my "immediate family" - what should I do? - should I post up my wife's life-story or my dad's income?

Seriously folks, instead of ranting on a blog, why not actually DO SOMETHING:

- First, quit focusing on Obama and take note of the hundreds of our elected officials who actually did approve of this legislation. Is your congressman on the list? (mine is) Write a letter, make a call, or at least do an online petition.

- Second, try to remember some junior-high civics and understand that this will be battled in the courts and that court battles cost money. So give some money to the organizations that actually are fighting this thing and have a shot at overturning it. The ACLU and EFF are good places to start.

Or you could put your tin-foil hats on and whine about the "PTB" ...

Submitted by CA renter on April 29, 2012 - 4:42pm.

pri_dk wrote:
flu wrote:
...And yet people have no qualms sharing every intimate and personal details about their life on facebook, myspace, linkedin, twitter, etc,etc,etc..

But BG keeps asking me about my "immediate family" - what should I do? - should I post up my wife's life-story or my dad's income?

Seriously folks, instead of ranting on a blog, why not actually DO SOMETHING:

- First, quit focusing on Obama and take note of the hundreds of our elected officials who actually did approve of this legislation. Is your congressman on the list? (mine is) Write a letter, make a call, or at least do an online petition.

- Second, try to remember some junior-high civics and understand that this will be battled in the courts and that court battles cost money. So give some money to the organizations that actually are fighting this thing and have a shot at overturning it. The ACLU and EFF are good places to start.

Or you could put your tin-foil hats on and whine about the "PTB" ...

The powers who are pushing this stuff are not in Congress -- politicians are simply their puppets and do their bidding for them. This has been moving forward for a long, long time (as Allan mentioned, above), and it is totally unrelated to political parties or individual politicians.

You have to address the **root** of the problem. Who are these entities? What do they have to gain (vast amounts of money/power)? How can they -- and anyone who steps up behind them -- be stopped for good?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.