thats why I'm voting for Bernie sanders. Libertarian? I'm not so sure. How about more government focus as consumer advocate?
OMG. Bernie Sanders voted for previous incarnations of this bill, against auditing the federal reserve etc. Sure now that he's running for president he pretends.
The reason the country is fucked up is that people like you are so gullible.
We never lived in a democracy, we live in a republic. What we need is to set term limits for senators and house representatives. Their only goal is to get re-elected because that's their job, not to actually represent us.
The problem is, they'll never vote to give themselves Term Limits. People keep voting for these dummies into office over and over again pretty much much no matter what they do. They'll be there for 50 years. Things will continue to get worse. That's what happens.
Ah yes - that quotation, with all its associated irony, was sure to arise somewhere in this thread. You didn't go so far as to make a specific point with it but your "forgotten by Congress" comment suggests, as is usually the case when that quote is rolled out, that you have no idea what Franklin was talking about when he wrote it.
Franklin may not even wrote such a statement. Leave out his name. I still believe in that quote, Not quote, whatever,.... A ever growing, government getting more and more corrupt is what we have! We have a Federal Government that has way over stepped it's bounds long ago. It's also at the point of why do we even have Local and State Governments any more? So many people these days think it's the federal governments job for everything. When you have the Federal Government getting Involved in Baseball players doing steroids for example, that's a clear sign it's way to big. That the federal government has it's hands into everything. It forces the states into giving up it's own rights for MONEY!!!
Ah yes - that quotation, with all its associated irony, was sure to arise somewhere in this thread. You didn't go so far as to make a specific point with it but your "forgotten by Congress" comment suggests, as is usually the case when that quote is rolled out, that you have no idea what Franklin was talking about when he wrote it.
Franklin may not even wrote such a statement. Leave out his name. I still believe in that quote, Not quote, whatever,.... A ever growing, government getting more and more corrupt is what we have! We have a Federal Government that has way over stepped it's bounds long ago. It's also at the point of why do we even have Local and State Governments any more? So many people these days think it's the federal governments job for everything. When you have the Federal Government getting Involved in Baseball players doing steroids for example, that's a clear sign it's way to big. That the federal government has it's hands into everything. It forces the states into giving up it's own rights for MONEY!!!
No, he wrote it, in a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania, on 11 November, 1755 (Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21.). It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
and Libertarians tend to side more with Republican, most of whom approved this. Only 2-3 Libertarians disapproved, the rest were either for it or didn't vote. 67% of the nay votes were from Democrats. So if you are against this then you know who to vote for.
This bill doesn't demand data from companies though, this is different from the government requests for access to private data. This is more about liability for sharing data when private companies detect a cybersecurity threat:
"Back when Democrats controlled the Senate, they blocked a bill with a similar acronym — CISPA (the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act) — that had the same thrust. Now Republicans control the Senate."
"Does the bill require information-sharing?
No. Cooperation is voluntary. But there's a nice incentive built in. Say a company shares too much about its users or customers. The bill eliminates legal liability, so the company is shielded from private lawsuits and antitrust laws."
It can open the door to private companies abusing customer privacy, although there are requirements to remove private data not related to a cybersecurity threat but it shouldn't adversely affect companies like Apple who try to maintain customer privacy.
What it means though is that if DropBox had a security breach where celebrities had their accounts hacked, DropBox would be allowed to tell Apple that celebrities had their accounts breached and Apple could then block their accounts and inform them of a breach that may compromise their Apple account and neither Apple nor DropBox would be liable for sharing the account information.
The downside to the sharing is that DropBox could share the data of hacked accounts along with passwords to check if the passwords matched another service rather than automatically locking out all those users. An employee at this company could then use this data to violate the privacy of hacked users at another company or they could store it insecurely and it leaks out at a later date.
Certain members of the government will always be wanting to get bulk spying approved so every bill about data should be looked through thoroughly but most of the front-facing people in the government who handle the votes wouldn't want to be spied on as citizens either and you can see very clearly that they don't consider the citizens of the country to be their enemy, their motive is against foreign threats.
Ideally, companies should all have rock solid security, heavily encrypt everything and share none of your data but this doesn't happen. Sony had all sorts of data going back years unencrypted. If this bill will allow for damage limitation then it's good. If it leads to further privacy breaches then it's bad. Sometimes you don't know if it will have a better or worse outcome until it's in place. If it encourages breaches of privacy then people will vote to have it changed or removed. Government is a never-ending back and forth debate about what are the best laws to live by based on the changes that happen in the world and new laws are necessary. If someone steals your data, you'd immediately declare it to be illegal but the only way it's illegal is because someone wrote a law saying that. If you remove that governance then it's legal.
Marvin, you again attempt to paint Libertarians with a broad brush and give an inaccurate account of things. First of all, Libertarians do not exclusively align with Republicans:
In the case of this "Cybersecurity" business, 31 Democrats voted FOR this monstrosity, which is only 12 fewer than Republicans. Justin Amash, Rand Paul and several others did not vote on this one.
None of these people are Libertarians, even though Amash and Paul are probably closest to Libertarian principles (even Rand Paul is not perfect with regard to some of his military positions).
No, he wrote it, in a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania, on 11 November, 1755 (Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21.). It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Thanks for the citation. What is your interpretation of the quote's meaning
So what can we do to take our rights back? This bill is being supported by both democrats and republicans so we can't blame one side. It's obvious Washington DC has no concern for our rights. No government agency does.
Bernie Sanders voted AGAINST. only presidential candidate who values privacy.
These senators are just dumb. Well, with Apple's built end to end encryption it means Apple really cannot get the data. Not so lucky for other companies.
Seems like they saw this coming and insulated themselves.
Well yes, but the other thrust from the NSA/FBI/GCHQ who want back doors built in, can still negate Apple's foresight.
The most troubling aspect of these proposals is that "participating companies will be exempt from Freedom of Information requests" which allows the government agencies to completely do away with any oversight and bury deep any paper trail that would expose wrongful acts by these agencies. IOW...not only will there be no evidence of shenanigans, but any and all requests for information will be forbidden and companies will be under strict NDA to never disclose that any request was ever made.
That's some Catch 22.
You’ve demonized the police too and they are staying in their cars letting the bad guys have their way with you. Crime is up.
actually thats not true. violent crime is in a historic downward trend. and the "youtube effect" you are claiming (cops being cowards in their cars, fearing citizen publishing) is not grounded in fact or data. in fact NPR had a piece on this last night and interviewed the former chief of police from New Orleans, who stated that most chiefs disagree that the youtube effect has had any affect on their departments or staff. he said there was the same hysteria when dash-cams came out.
but nice try trying to make excuses for police. they have to deal with surveillance just like the rest of us. the watchmen are watched.
thats why I'm voting for Bernie sanders. Libertarian? I'm not so sure. How about more government focus as consumer advocate?
That is the big socialist,not someone who will protect your liberties. For freedom, you must look to Rand Paul, or if he does not receive the nomination, look to the Libertarian Party nominee.
I want privacy but i also want criminals, terrorists, kidnappers, etc. caught. It is impossible to fight for the rights of good people while also protecting them from the bad ones.
youre making the fallacy of the false dilemma -- suggesting one must choose one or the other. you dont.
also, terrorists represent almost no threat to you. youre far, far more likely to kill yourself owing to depression.
OMG. Bernie Sanders voted for previous incarnations of this bill, against auditing the federal reserve etc. Sure now that he's running for president he pretends.
The reason the country is fucked up is that people like you are so gullible.
BS. please cite your claims.
he always votes against surveillance, like the Patriot Act (twice):
That is the big socialist,not someone who will protect your liberties. For freedom, you must look to Rand Paul, or if he does not receive the nomination, look to the Libertarian Party nominee.
hes a socialist democrat. you know, like how Rand is a libertarian republican. regardless, socialism isnt a bad word. and we've had socialist policies in this country for decades. there is absolutely no chance of USA become a "socialist" nation... but there is a chance of some of the 1% losing their stranglehold on power and wealth.
It is impossible to fight for the rights of good people while also protecting them from the bad ones.
People like you are the reason this happened. [CONTENTEMBED=/t/189798/controversial-cybersecurity-bill-passed-with-resounding-senate-support#post_2797427 layout=inline] [/CONTENTEMBED]
Disgusting. Vote out these power hungry fear mongerers. Only vote those in who support you.
So... don’t vote.
So "Why don't you go and stand in that field over there - which we own by the way, whilst we decide your future"
I feel I should quote John MacEnroe...
That's why jailbreak and secure in custom way will be response by security experts who oppose the bill. That is also reason some of us do not use iCloud, do not use certain applications and do not store data on devices.
No there is not activity to be hidden, but it could be abused one day by fools with agenda.
I wonder how it works that it is legal for some govt. officials to use private servers with e-mails and then delete official communications with no consequences and for average people anything convenient can be used against them.
You don’t know anything about those freaks, do you?
Originally Posted by Frac
So "Why don't you go and stand in that field over there - which we own by the way, whilst we decide your future"
That’s what I’m saying. Until the foreign ownership of this country is removed, it is impossible to vote in anyone who has your interests and only your interests at heart.
Comments
thats why I'm voting for Bernie sanders. Libertarian? I'm not so sure. How about more government focus as consumer advocate?
OMG. Bernie Sanders voted for previous incarnations of this bill, against auditing the federal reserve etc. Sure now that he's running for president he pretends.
The reason the country is fucked up is that people like you are so gullible.
We never lived in a democracy, we live in a republic. What we need is to set term limits for senators and house representatives. Their only goal is to get re-elected because that's their job, not to actually represent us.
The problem is, they'll never vote to give themselves Term Limits. People keep voting for these dummies into office over and over again pretty much much no matter what they do. They'll be there for 50 years. Things will continue to get worse. That's what happens.
Hahahahaha!
You keep believing that if it gives your life some purpose.
Thanks for lifting my spirits!
The lady doth clearly protest to much. Since you just admitted that libertarianism is the moral position, why continue to resist?
Stockholm Syndrome?
Ah yes - that quotation, with all its associated irony, was sure to arise somewhere in this thread. You didn't go so far as to make a specific point with it but your "forgotten by Congress" comment suggests, as is usually the case when that quote is rolled out, that you have no idea what Franklin was talking about when he wrote it.
Franklin may not even wrote such a statement. Leave out his name. I still believe in that quote, Not quote, whatever,.... A ever growing, government getting more and more corrupt is what we have! We have a Federal Government that has way over stepped it's bounds long ago. It's also at the point of why do we even have Local and State Governments any more? So many people these days think it's the federal governments job for everything. When you have the Federal Government getting Involved in Baseball players doing steroids for example, that's a clear sign it's way to big. That the federal government has it's hands into everything. It forces the states into giving up it's own rights for MONEY!!!
No, he wrote it, in a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania, on 11 November, 1755 (Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21.). It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
It's all Al Gore's fault for inventing the Internet.
Marvin, you again attempt to paint Libertarians with a broad brush and give an inaccurate account of things. First of all, Libertarians do not exclusively align with Republicans:
http://m.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/15/1162077/-Libertarians-provided-the-margin-for-Democrats-in-at-least-nine-elections
In the case of this "Cybersecurity" business, 31 Democrats voted FOR this monstrosity, which is only 12 fewer than Republicans. Justin Amash, Rand Paul and several others did not vote on this one.
None of these people are Libertarians, even though Amash and Paul are probably closest to Libertarian principles (even Rand Paul is not perfect with regard to some of his military positions).
No, he wrote it, in a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania, on 11 November, 1755 (Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives, 1755-1756 (Philadelphia, 1756), pp. 19-21.). It just doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Thanks for the citation. What is your interpretation of the quote's meaning
Bernie Sanders voted AGAINST. only presidential candidate who values privacy.
Well yes, but the other thrust from the NSA/FBI/GCHQ who want back doors built in, can still negate Apple's foresight.
The most troubling aspect of these proposals is that "participating companies will be exempt from Freedom of Information requests" which allows the government agencies to completely do away with any oversight and bury deep any paper trail that would expose wrongful acts by these agencies. IOW...not only will there be no evidence of shenanigans, but any and all requests for information will be forbidden and companies will be under strict NDA to never disclose that any request was ever made.
That's some Catch 22.
hmm yeah so Bernie Sanders voted against this. and the Patriot Act (twice). and against the wars:
http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/
...he has a better record than your libertarian heroes. oops.
actually thats not true. violent crime is in a historic downward trend. and the "youtube effect" you are claiming (cops being cowards in their cars, fearing citizen publishing) is not grounded in fact or data. in fact NPR had a piece on this last night and interviewed the former chief of police from New Orleans, who stated that most chiefs disagree that the youtube effect has had any affect on their departments or staff. he said there was the same hysteria when dash-cams came out.
but nice try trying to make excuses for police. they have to deal with surveillance just like the rest of us. the watchmen are watched.
That is the big socialist,not someone who will protect your liberties. For freedom, you must look to Rand Paul, or if he does not receive the nomination, look to the Libertarian Party nominee.
youre making the fallacy of the false dilemma -- suggesting one must choose one or the other. you dont.
also, terrorists represent almost no threat to you. youre far, far more likely to kill yourself owing to depression.
BS. please cite your claims.
he always votes against surveillance, like the Patriot Act (twice):
http://time.com/3850839/bernie-sanders-usa-patriot-act/
hes a socialist democrat. you know, like how Rand is a libertarian republican. regardless, socialism isnt a bad word. and we've had socialist policies in this country for decades. there is absolutely no chance of USA become a "socialist" nation... but there is a chance of some of the 1% losing their stranglehold on power and wealth.
So "Why don't you go and stand in that field over there - which we own by the way, whilst we decide your future"
I feel I should quote John MacEnroe...
No there is not activity to be hidden, but it could be abused one day by fools with agenda.
I wonder how it works that it is legal for some govt. officials to use private servers with e-mails and then delete official communications with no consequences and for average people anything convenient can be used against them.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA
You don’t know anything about those freaks, do you?
That’s what I’m saying. Until the foreign ownership of this country is removed, it is impossible to vote in anyone who has your interests and only your interests at heart.