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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
