First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply CISA - Government's latest attempt at internet surveillance... again
11505 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/15 , edited 10/23/15
lol.

who cares anyway. The NSA has that "tap" into raw data thing they're doing. Every single packet sent from your PC is processed by them.
17215 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
(´◔౪◔)✂❤
Offline
Posted 10/22/15 , edited 10/22/15
Other than child pornography.... what other crimes does the government surveillance people for?
Posted 10/22/15 , edited 10/22/15
One of the things that does worry me is how there might be a decent piece of legislation that people will zealously oppose due to "muh freedom" value they got running. Not that I can imagine a "good" legislation of this type, but it could be possible.

An interesting thing of note would be this.

http://www.cnet.com/news/abortion-hit-list-slammed-in-court/
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/13/us/anti-abortion-site-on-web-has-ignited-free-speech-debate.html?pagewanted=all

I remember a case awhile back where the Government attempted to close down a website that advocated for the killing of abortion doctors as well as include the names and such of the doctors. Would you support censorship of those sites?
8653 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Pennsylvania
Offline
Posted 10/22/15
1 question would something like the onion router and tor be something that if any of this stuff was to ever pass could those things still bypass it?

this question is for science i dont even know what those things i mentioned are or what they do
51519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/22/15 , edited 10/22/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:
Take Vlad Tepes, aka Vlad the impaler. He impaled basically anyone that broke the law. And you know what? No one broke a fucking law. Is this not a utopia we all seek?




Did you seriously just use Vlad Tepes of all people as an example of how laws should be enforced and called it a utopia? The man was a blood thirsty maniac.

PV, it sounds like you're more scared of a random stranger you'll probably never meet over someone who actually has control over you. The constitution exists to protect us from the government. When the government is trying to create laws that counter that, it should raise some red flags in your mind.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/15 , edited 10/22/15

FlyinDumpling wrote:

Other than child pornography.... what other crimes does the government surveillance people for?

Totally glad they scan for child pornography.

Bomb threats. Happened at a college, near here, over an angry email. FBI arrested the woman, but later released her.

Piracy. The problem is that it is so prevalent, enforcement is almost impossible. Currently they are only going after those who host and some who upload.

One thing is, this would give them a means to use every bit of information to profile everyone. EVERYONE. Psycho-Pass, anyone?

It's not what they would do immediately after getting this ability, legally... It's the fact that it is the first step down a very dangerous path of TRUE oppression. It's scary.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 10/22/15

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

One of the things that does worry me is how there might be a decent piece of legislation that people will zealously oppose due to "muh freedom" value they got running. Not that I can imagine a "good" legislation of this type, but it could be possible.

An interesting thing of note would be this.

http://www.cnet.com/news/abortion-hit-list-slammed-in-court/
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/01/13/us/anti-abortion-site-on-web-has-ignited-free-speech-debate.html?pagewanted=all

I remember a case awhile back where the Government attempted to close down a website that advocated for the killing of abortion doctors as well as include the names and such of the doctors. Would you support censorship of those sites?


I understand what you are saying here, and kind of agree (which is odd). Just because this piece of legislation is garbage, that doesn't mean that something good will not come down the line at some point.

Really and truly, people need to start thinking for themselves, rather than listen to what members of a certain party are telling them. Especially considering that the ONLY reason those parties truly exist is to herd people into voting. They all split on near-trivial issues, and keep people focused on those issues... to keep people blind to the fact that NEITHER party is really going to accomplish anything that we really want or need. Basically, they keep serving us shit sandwiches and keep us fighting over whether they should have mayo or mustard on them.
Posted 10/22/15 , edited 10/22/15

PhantomGundam wrote:


PeripheralVisionary wrote:
Take Vlad Tepes, aka Vlad the impaler. He impaled basically anyone that broke the law. And you know what? No one broke a fucking law. Is this not a utopia we all seek?




Did you seriously just use Vlad Tepes of all people as an example of how laws should be enforced and called it a utopia? The man was a blood thirsty maniac.

PV, it sounds like you're more scared of a random stranger you'll probably never meet over someone who actually has control over you. The constitution exists to protect us from the government. When the government is trying to create laws that counter that, it should raise some red flags in your mind.


I was merely testing the waters after BlueOni's comment about mwah.


BlueOni wrote:


descloud wrote:

Pretty sure this guy just admitted he would rape a girl....


One of the rules of Fight Club is to never, ever take Peripheral Visionary at his word. He'll tell you he's a Soviet visionary if you ask.


Although I might support censorship of say, that Nuremburg website or something that advocate violence or allowed me to buy slaves with bitcoin.
51519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/22/15


It's hard to tell when you're serious or not when you're always so random.

And yeah, websites that exist just to encourage crimes like murder do need to be taken care of.
35059 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/23/15 , edited 10/23/15
Let's do away with secondary sources and go straight for primary. It's a lot of gobbledygook, though, so why not have a plain English translation while we're at it?

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/754



I'd be interested to know what restrictions are currently in place concerning private monitoring of information, and I'd certainly like to know what is specifically meant by private actors seeking to mitigate threats they've perceived. That seems like language that has perfectly good intentions but could be abused horrendously.

Another thing I'm concerned about is that the process of receiving information about suspected threats is automated. Sure, that's a big boost for efficiency and allows for real time information gathering, but I've seen automated reporting systems in action. That's how we ended up with mass flagging of YouTube videos without regard for the manner and context of use of copyrighted content by bot programs. Sure, in theory using those bots is a great way to efficiently handle the mass quantities of videos being posted and better enforce the DMCA. In practice it's a quagmire that sweeps up both legal and illegal uses of content indiscriminately.
Posted 10/23/15
Google must be unhappy
41713 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/23/15
Probably gonna die. Most legislations having to do with web surveillance are axed.
Posted 10/23/15
Got one in europe too :C
659 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F
Offline
Posted 10/23/15 , edited 10/23/15
Not like surveillance laws are too big an issue, not like they don't already.
It's probably not going to be well-enforced anyway, given about 99% of people have broken internet laws anyway (most common law to break would be using a false name, essentially, logging in as coolboy999 is illegal because it's not your real name.)
51519 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 10/23/15

BlueOni wrote:

I'd be interested to know what restrictions are currently in place concerning private monitoring of information, and I'd certainly like to know what is specifically meant by private actors seeking to mitigate threats they've perceived. That seems like language that has perfectly good intentions but could be abused horrendously.

Another thing I'm concerned about is that the process of receiving information about suspected threats is automated. Sure, that's a big boost for efficiency and allows for real time information gathering, but I've seen automated reporting systems in action. That's how we ended up with mass flagging of YouTube videos without regard for the manner and context of use of copyrighted content by bot programs. Sure, in theory using those bots is a great way to efficiently handle the mass quantities of videos being posted and better enforce the DMCA. In practice it's a quagmire that sweeps up both legal and illegal uses of content indiscriminately.


It looks like it's vague intentionally considering the fact that they shot down any rational amendment that could've solved at least a few of the issues.

S.Amdt. 2548: "To protect information that is reasonably believed to be personal information or information that identifies a specific person."
S.Amdt. 2564: "To prohibit liability immunity to applying to private entities that break user or privacy agreements with customers."
S.Amdt. 2612: "To improve the definitions of cybersecurity threat and cyber threat indicator."

Amendments like these are no longer up for debate and they're set to vote next week. I guess we'll see where this goes.


Thanks for providing your own simplified wording of the bill. Do you mind if I add that to the OP?


haikinka wrote:

Got one in europe too :C


First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.