Welcome to Gaia! ::

redroosters
When I Leave This World

In summary:
I feel the Patriot Act, the NDAA and potentially CIPSA are all in place to "to protect the national security of the United States." But from what? The next dark skinned Disney villain we should all be against? Osama was a scapegoat. Kony is a potential scapegoat. Next it will be a hacker group like Anonymous that we need to fear.
(I'm not saying these people didn't commit crimes against humanity, but the way they are being related to us in order to push bills through congress or for economic reasons is propaganda)

Edit: Clarity.

It's getting closer and closer to us, isn't it? The ultimate goal is control of the populace. This is not paranoia. This is not insanity. This is the logical course of action.


Truth.
SoullessSingularity's avatar

Lunatic

redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters
Princess Creampie
redroosters

How is Verd awesome? She belongs in GD with the rest of those hipster scum.

I'ma hipster too! xd

Verd is awesome because she just is. ninja

I hate those. Useless human husks, doing nothing with themselves but eating Nutella and listening to shitty indie music.

No, she isn't.

If I listen to indie music because I legitimately like it (not purely because it's indie, I just liked one song from one band, then liked a similar song, then liked a similar song, and it gradually went more obscure from there) am I a hipster?

Do you hate me now, redroosters?

It really depends on the songs and bands, but there is a good chance you have s**t taste in music and will never be allowed to play what you like around me.
Not a problem. I don't intend to play my music around anyone but people who tell me they like my tastes in music. I'm not that big of a douchebag to assume everyone will like my tastes! yum_puddi
When I Leave This World
Prepare yourself for a wall of text. Dammit it's too early for this.
Gill_Of_Octane

Ok, lets take a look at some of those:
When I Leave This World
SarahSass
So basically our internet privacy is slowly becoming no more?

If that's so, who cares? The internet isn't a place for privacy, your physical home is a place for privacey.

Sorry if I'm being to vague about the bill, but this really doesn't seem like a more important topic to talk about than rape. You made me sour when you made it sound like old news. XP


I do not mean to offend you, I have been drifting in and out of the ED for a few months, and I always see the topics of rape, abortion, gay marriage, etc. I am not lessening the severity of these topics I am simply saying it is a dead horse. I'd rather not participate in beating it. Instead here is some relevant news to individuals in the USA.

This bill is about privacy. It is about the unconstitutional seizure and search of personal data. The 4th amendment protects us from that. This bill scares me for that reason.

Not only that but it is being backed by major companies who see it as a monetary gain if it were to pass.

It is also about censorship among other things. The sources I provided go in depth on how the individual is going to be effected.

The net is public domain. There is no privacy. When you register a e-mail with lets say hotmail or gmail or yahoomail, or as a matter of fact an account with any site including facebook, youtube, etc, you're signing a contract with the company. What you're doing is using the company's service, server, and property. Unless explicitly stated in the "user agreement" that it guarantee privacy, everything thats sent through them, is their property. They can do as they see fit with it. The whole concept of privacy on the net is just a delusion. Its not unconstitutional to seize law breaking evidence on a public domain. The 4th amendment protects your person and property. Your account is not your property, its the said company's property. They have the right to disclose it to government agencies or the public. Thats not seizure. From what I see the bill does not DEMAND companies to share what they believe to be a "cyber threat", they ALLOW it to be done.

What about censorship? Private companies have the right to censor what they want.


Ok, you mentioned Facebook. Lets have a look at their ToS really quick.
Facebook ToS
Sharing Your Content and Information

You own all of the content and information you post on Facebook, and you can control how it is shared through your privacy and application settings. In addition:

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings: you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.
When you delete IP content, it is deleted in a manner similar to emptying the recycle bin on a computer. However, you understand that removed content may persist in backup copies for a reasonable period of time (but will not be available to others).
When you use an application, your content and information is shared with the application. We require applications to respect your privacy, and your agreement with that application will control how the application can use, store, and transfer that content and information. (To learn more about Platform, read our Privacy Policy and Platform Page.)
When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).
We always appreciate your feedback or other suggestions about Facebook, but you understand that we may use them without any obligation to compensate you for them (just as you have no obligation to offer them).

I own all content I post? Hmm... you seem to have told me the opposite. Sites put clauses like the first 'in addition' so you can't sue when one of your friends click share on a picture you post. They can't go all willy nilly with it and put it in a book without permission or sell it as their own.

Did you also continue to keep reading? I bolded the next few important sentences. Facebook has the right to your information. When you disclose informatin, post videos, pics etc. You've agreed that facebook owns that information and you do so on your own will. Regardless the reason why they put clauses like this, the bottom line is they own the content you put on. Also facebook is just one of those sites. Heres gaia's version:

Gaiainteractives Privacy Notice

When Gaia Discloses Information:

Gaia does not share your personally identifiable information with other organizations for their marketing or promotional uses without your express consent.
Gaia may disclose Automatically Collected and other aggregate non-personally-identifiable information with interested third parties to assist such parties in understanding the usage and demographic patterns for certain programs, content, services, advertisements, promotions, and/or other functionality on Gaia Online.
Gaia may disclose some types of Member Information to certain affiliated companies or other businesses or persons who provide web site hosting, maintenance and security services, fulfill orders, offer certain functionality, help improve our site and create new site features. We require that these parties process such information in compliance with this Privacy Notice, we authorize only a limited use of such information, and we require these parties to use appropriate confidentiality measures.
Gaia may disclose Member Information if required to do so by law or in the good-faith belief that such action is necessary to comply with state and federal laws (such as U.S. Copyright law) or respond to a court order, judicial or other government subpoena, or warrant. We may make such disclosures, in some cases, without providing Members notice.
Gaia also reserves the right to disclose Member Information that we believe, in good faith, is appropriate or necessary to take precautions against liability; protect Gaia from fraudulent, abusive, or unlawful uses; to investigate and defend ourselves against any third-party claims or allegations; to assist government enforcement agencies; to protect the security or integrity of Gaia Online; and to protect the rights, property, or personal safety of our Members or other persons.

Your Choices:

You may, of course, decline to share your personally-identifiable information with Gaia, in which case you will not be able to participate in many Gaia Online activities. You may update, correct, or delete your Member account information and email subscription preferences at any time by going to the Edit Profile section of Gaia Online; provided, however, that upon deletion of your account or profile, please note that some of your personal information, including billing and contact information, may remain in Gaia's systems for some limited period of time.

To protect your privacy and security, we take reasonable steps to verify your identity before granting you account access or making corrections. HOWEVER, You are responsible for maintaining the secrecy of your unique password and account information at all times.

Again, I bolded the important stuff. Again, it says they have the right of sharing your information with whomever they deem necessary. They own all your information, which you willing give up in exchange for the use of the site and service. If you decline to give up these information, they limit your use of the site. All these ToS you have to agree to before you join the site, check the "I agree" button or something similar (something that almost noone reads) or you cannot create an account there.

When I Leave This World
As it stands now, if you are involved in a trial that needs personal web data (such as child porn), there's red tape to getting it. Investigators need warrants from a judge to get your ISP to release that sort of information. So yes, it is protected under the 4th amendment.

Actually the warrant would not be for you and it would not be for your property. The warrant would be for the site, to release the site's collected information. Again, the account you have is not your property, its the site's property. The 4th amendment does not apply to you when they go to google to demand your email history.


When I Leave This World
Gil

When I Leave This World
The Willow Of Darkness
Ophelia your secret is safe
/snip.
Ophelia


This is copywritten material. Under CIPSA you could be facing charges.

Quoting is legal. Claiming it as your own is called plagerism. Selling or distributing it for profit is a copyright infringement.


This was somewhat of a joke actually, but let me point out that she didn't quote it. She posted it without giving credit to the song writer, the musician, or the record label.

She isn't protected under the fair use amendment either, as it states “the fair use of a copyrighted work … for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research, is not an infringement of copyright.”

She did none of that.

Did a bit of research, and you are correct. Indeed, posting entire lyrics and not giving due quotes is a copyright infringement and she is guilty of it. I concede.

When I Leave This World
Gil

When I Leave This World
Crylvia
redroosters

It's getting closer and closer to us, isn't it? The ultimate goal is control of the populace. This is not paranoia. This is not insanity. This is the logical course of action.
The goal of CIPSA is not conquest, rather the protection of ordinary citizens like yourself.


The goal of CIPSA is to allow the sharing of personal information between companies and the government alike. As well as censorship of materials. You are being told it is to 'protect you' but again... from what?

Cyber crimes? The bill hardly defines what that is. Do not fall for this propaganda.

Whats wrong with allowing the sharing of personal information if you willing released the information to the company? If they stole such information from you its another story, but they can only have information you willingly post, and if its incriminating thats your fault. And whats wrong with censorship of materials? Private company has the right to censor anything they want. As long as the government is not censoring it, its legal.

Protecting you from well lets see... if something like Ozama Al Terry-List is sending email through gmail about his plans to blow up a public building to his cronies and google reports it, I feel protected. Its up to the disgression of the company to determine whats considered cyber crimes. Whats wrong with not defining specific "cyber crimes"?


Firstly, I don't want any government official knowing what kind of porn I watch. Under CIPSA, if I get a secret government stalker, guess what? They can see anything I've watched, said, or searched for online.

Then what you should be going after is not CIPSA. What you should be going after are laws that deals with government agents abusing power.

When I Leave This World
It would be government censorship, removing things that were deemed a cyber crime...wikileaks is one example. I understand some cyber crimes can be very dangerous, and there are ways to get access to web info as it stands now. It isn't instantaneous though. Also such crimes can easily be blown out of proportion very easily under this law.

Wikileaks is criminal in action. They are disclosing private information that was not given to them willingly and without their permission. Again, you're still just predicting "this can happen, that can happen." Alot of things can happen, but you did not give any solid evidence that government will undoubtly use it to censor its public and blow crimes out of proportion.

When I Leave This World
Gil

When I Leave This World
Love Muffin88
Yeah, I don't like that. So.....the cyber-police will be extra for cereal about busting your a** for downloading free s**t? Among other things.


They will have access to every site you visit, everything you download, every post you make and can persecute you for it under these laws and many others; all without requiring a warrant or bringing any charges against you, or any trial at all.

'Cyber crimes' are very vaguely outlined in the bill. If you wanted to, you could say a post organizing a protest on a war with Iran is a danger to the USA. This would be an extreme case but I wouldn't put it past our corrupt government.

So yes. Among many other things.

Theres nothing to persecute if you dont break a law. So what are you sweating about if you're not breaking laws? And wouldnt you want someone thats broken laws to be persecuted for doing the wrong thing? This is wrong. Warrents only covers your property and person. I already covered how what you post online NOT your property. If no charges are bought upon you and no trail/hearing is brought upon you, then whats the complaint?

That claim only works if theres another law that prevents protests of the "a war with Iran" that exists. You're being charged for protesting a war with Iran under that bill, not this one. This one just makes it so you cant hide it online. Your're not a criminal unless you break a law, be it cyber or not. So what you should be fighting is the law that makes it illegal to protest, not this bill.


The complaint is that the government has access to all my data without bringing any charges against me. That is an infringement on the basic civil liberties promised to me as an American Citizen in the constitution/bill of rights.

No. The government has access to all your data because it was shared with another entity that is monitored by the government. Its not an infringement on the basic civil liberties promised to you because you willing gave up that information.

When I Leave This World
Did you read the amendment to CIPSA that passed that stated 'various cyber crimes' were subject to prosecution? Allow me to quote it here
Research
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.

Somehow, incredibly, this was described as limiting CISPA, but it accomplishes the exact opposite. This is very, very bad.


It speaks for itself.

The 4th amendment does still apply. However business regulations also applies online. The servers that are storing your post and information is not owned by you. The site that you use is not owned by you. Your statement would be true and you can make a case if CIPSA also applies to your privately owned, non-commercial servers. Such as if a company's internal server, etc are also subjected to CIPSA.

You know I think you guys are just giving this bill a bad spin because you want the net to be a place where you can hide stuff. In the physical world when you commit a crime behind closed doors and law enforcement does not find out, they cannot do anything about it. But if you do so in public, like lets say on the streets, and law enforcement sees it, they can interfere and arrest you. What this bill is doing essentially is making cyber space into a public and transparent space. I dont see anything wrong with that. The right to the 4th amendment is also unviolated on the physical world as akin to cyberspace. If you walk into an establishment outside your home, and commit a crime there, you're subjected to arrest, your 4th amendment is still intact. The same should apply for if you go into an online establishment and commit a crime, you should be subject to arrest.

When I Leave This World
Gil

When I Leave This World
Jorgunmandr
From what you posed in the OP without reading the links I'm not seeing anything that I should be afraid of.


Any violation of the basic rights promised to me is cause for concern in my book.

Maybe you should check out my sources?

Exactly what rights are promised to you?

I was referring to the 4th amendment.
Gil

When I Leave This World
redroosters

It's getting closer and closer to us, isn't it? The ultimate goal is control of the populace. This is not paranoia. This is not insanity. This is the logical course of action.


I think the main problem is corporate sponsorship. That is why bills like this are being pushed through congress. We need a separation of business and state.

Controlling what is posted on the web is a huge way to control the population, for those of us who get our news from sources like wikileaks, which will be directly effected by this. It is not aimed to protect the general population, but rather, is being marketed that it will.

This bill is infringing upon our 4th amendment right as well.

Sites already have the power to censor what they want. Theres no difference on that between the bill passing or not. This bill is not going to change it. Now if the government is censoring the sites, thats a problem, because thats an infringement on the 1st amendment. But thats not the case with this bill, its not allowing the government to censor these site.

I already went over how its not infringing upon the 4th amendment.



Sooo... in conclusion, I just went through all 3 pages of your "reasons" against this bill and I dont see anything that holds water and why this bill is bad. Most what what you said has to do with the subsequent bill that makes an action illegal. What I derive from this is just you condoning for the net to be a safe haven for possible illegal activities.







Get your facts straight, then get back with me.

Again, the 4th amendment is not violated because we're not dealing with a person's private property. We're dealing with information that one willingly gives up in exchange to using a website. The government is essentially defining online businesses as public establishments.

Also I wanted to note one thing, the web is worldwide, CISPA laws can only effect sites that are hosted in the US and businesses that are registered in the US.
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters
Princess Creampie
redroosters

How is Verd awesome? She belongs in GD with the rest of those hipster scum.

I'ma hipster too! xd

Verd is awesome because she just is. ninja

I hate those. Useless human husks, doing nothing with themselves but eating Nutella and listening to shitty indie music.

No, she isn't.

If I listen to indie music because I legitimately like it (not purely because it's indie, I just liked one song from one band, then liked a similar song, then liked a similar song, and it gradually went more obscure from there) am I a hipster?

Do you hate me now, redroosters?

It really depends on the songs and bands, but there is a good chance you have s**t taste in music and will never be allowed to play what you like around me.
Not a problem. I don't intend to play my music around anyone but people who tell me they like my tastes in music. I'm not that big of a douchebag to assume everyone will like my tastes! yum_puddi

Considerate of you.

Just curious, did you assume I didn't hate you to begin with for any specific reason?
Samadhi23
redroosters
When I Leave This World

In summary:
I feel the Patriot Act, the NDAA and potentially CIPSA are all in place to "to protect the national security of the United States." But from what? The next dark skinned Disney villain we should all be against? Osama was a scapegoat. Kony is a potential scapegoat. Next it will be a hacker group like Anonymous that we need to fear.
(I'm not saying these people didn't commit crimes against humanity, but the way they are being related to us in order to push bills through congress or for economic reasons is propaganda)

Edit: Clarity.

It's getting closer and closer to us, isn't it? The ultimate goal is control of the populace. This is not paranoia. This is not insanity. This is the logical course of action.


Truth.

Beautiful, innit?
SoullessSingularity's avatar

Lunatic

redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters

I hate those. Useless human husks, doing nothing with themselves but eating Nutella and listening to shitty indie music.

No, she isn't.

If I listen to indie music because I legitimately like it (not purely because it's indie, I just liked one song from one band, then liked a similar song, then liked a similar song, and it gradually went more obscure from there) am I a hipster?

Do you hate me now, redroosters?

It really depends on the songs and bands, but there is a good chance you have s**t taste in music and will never be allowed to play what you like around me.
Not a problem. I don't intend to play my music around anyone but people who tell me they like my tastes in music. I'm not that big of a douchebag to assume everyone will like my tastes! yum_puddi

Considerate of you.

Just curious, did you assume I didn't hate you to begin with for any specific reason?

Wait, so you do hate me? emo
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters

I hate those. Useless human husks, doing nothing with themselves but eating Nutella and listening to shitty indie music.

No, she isn't.

If I listen to indie music because I legitimately like it (not purely because it's indie, I just liked one song from one band, then liked a similar song, then liked a similar song, and it gradually went more obscure from there) am I a hipster?

Do you hate me now, redroosters?

It really depends on the songs and bands, but there is a good chance you have s**t taste in music and will never be allowed to play what you like around me.
Not a problem. I don't intend to play my music around anyone but people who tell me they like my tastes in music. I'm not that big of a douchebag to assume everyone will like my tastes! yum_puddi

Considerate of you.

Just curious, did you assume I didn't hate you to begin with for any specific reason?

Wait, so you do hate me? emo

Not that I do, per se, but why wouldn't I?
SoullessSingularity's avatar

Lunatic

redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters

It really depends on the songs and bands, but there is a good chance you have s**t taste in music and will never be allowed to play what you like around me.
Not a problem. I don't intend to play my music around anyone but people who tell me they like my tastes in music. I'm not that big of a douchebag to assume everyone will like my tastes! yum_puddi

Considerate of you.

Just curious, did you assume I didn't hate you to begin with for any specific reason?

Wait, so you do hate me? emo

Not that I do, per se, but why wouldn't I?

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters

It really depends on the songs and bands, but there is a good chance you have s**t taste in music and will never be allowed to play what you like around me.
Not a problem. I don't intend to play my music around anyone but people who tell me they like my tastes in music. I'm not that big of a douchebag to assume everyone will like my tastes! yum_puddi

Considerate of you.

Just curious, did you assume I didn't hate you to begin with for any specific reason?

Wait, so you do hate me? emo

Not that I do, per se, but why wouldn't I?

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

That isn't you.
SoullessSingularity's avatar

Lunatic

redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters

Considerate of you.

Just curious, did you assume I didn't hate you to begin with for any specific reason?

Wait, so you do hate me? emo

Not that I do, per se, but why wouldn't I?

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

That isn't you.

But it is cute.
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters
soul_less_human
redroosters

Considerate of you.

Just curious, did you assume I didn't hate you to begin with for any specific reason?

Wait, so you do hate me? emo

Not that I do, per se, but why wouldn't I?

User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.

That isn't you.

But it is cute.

Yes, but you're not.



That I can tell, anyways.
Delirious Nomad's avatar

Invisible Browser

8,750 Points
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Conversationalist 100
  • Noob wrangler 100
I'm only going to adress a portion of this bill since I am not american and only care that artists get their work's worth at the end of the day.

I'm a cd buyer and though I have discovered quite a few groups I had never heard of by surfing the net I really do think it important to respect intellectual property. I wish to see sites that allow you to download music (as in the entire album) on your pc banned while I would feel penalized not to be able to explore and discover by surfing - diffusion is fine but one should not be allowed to download and use at will. I think samples should be given out just like they are on the radio which if anything helps publicize the product but I am definatly against cd burning for free. Thus, I do think some areas of the internet need monitoring.
Lykeios Orizontas's avatar

Aged Poster

5,000 Points
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Contributor 150
  • Popular Thread 100
When I Leave This World

I think a separation of business and politics would work wonders on the level of corruption in DC. There is a reform debate going on now, actually. I'm pretty sure it only encompasses campaign finances, but it's a start. You can download several PDFs if you are interested.


It would, but I don't think that such a separation will happen as long as we are a capitalist country. I have no problem with capitalism really, but I also don't have a problem with a mixed economy.

Hm, I'm a huge fan of campaign reform. Unfortunately I don't have time to read those right now, but I'll have to take a look tomorrow or something.
Exoth XIII

He who trades a little liberty for safety deserves neither.
The premise of modern democracy is that trade. After all the Majority is supposed to protect and serve the interests of the future of the nation. That may not be in the interest of everyone. Loss to the individual at the cost of gain to the populace is the best course of action in democracy. So I guess ... no one deserves liberty in a rule dictated by tyranny.
Quote:

I'm against any form of government that doesn't put me, or someone else competent, at the head of things.
You clearly cannot support democracy on such a scale as even a million citizens strong. Not only is not everyone well versed in day-to-day political and even basic going's ons but now we are faced with total massacre of the idea of practicality in a society so divided by just it's sheer size and diversity. What was once the greatest factor in democracy, past a certain size, becomes it's undoing.
Quote:

Quote:
People riot and take protest and ... well they just take up space, but nothing changes without due force.

They don't even need force. All they need is commitment, the will necessary to tell the government, as they try to clear 'em out, "******** you, you can't move us." Even that, while it wouldn't accomplish their goal, it would at least actually BE a demonstration.
Not all force is physical. What you've stated is an example of force. An organized demand versus the wilting that people oft express.
Exoth XIII's avatar

Quotable Genius

7,500 Points
  • Super Tipsy 200
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Signature Look 250
Jorgunmandr
Exoth XIII

He who trades a little liberty for safety deserves neither.
The premise of modern democracy is that trade. After all the Majority is supposed to protect and serve the interests of the future of the nation. That may not be in the interest of everyone. Loss to the individual at the cost of gain to the populace is the best course of action in democracy. So I guess ... no one deserves liberty in a rule dictated by tyranny.

When the strongest resistance they can muster is standing around until Uncle Sam tells them their permit's run out, then yes, I'd argue that they don't deserve liberty.
Quote:
Quote:

I'm against any form of government that doesn't put me, or someone else competent, at the head of things.
You clearly cannot support democracy on such a scale as even a million citizens strong.

Not unless they are, at least in the majority, not ******** retarded.
Quote:

Quote:

They don't even need force. All they need is commitment, the will necessary to tell the government, as they try to clear 'em out, "******** you, you can't move us." Even that, while it wouldn't accomplish their goal, it would at least actually BE a demonstration.
Not all force is physical. What you've stated is an example of force. An organized demand versus the wilting that people oft express.

"Wilting." How apropos.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games