Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 24KT on April 19, 2013, 04:11:50 AM
-
Cispatriot Act: USA House of Reps pass CISPA cyber security bill citing marathon explosion as the reason
-
Well, I called this one right off the bat. Didn't think they were going to be so quick and shameless about it though.
They've been trying to get this thing passed for a looonnnngg time in various different interations. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Fucking scumbags.
-
Way to use a tragedy to further an agenda, classless.......
-
This is were the Senate can win some respect and do their fucking jobs.
If that fails then Obama can veto it as he said he might.
-
Yeah, let's by all means rush this through, because it's not like it's part of the overall terrorist strategy to make us afraid to live our lives or anything like that.
-
What's in this CIS Patriot act?
-
What's in this CIS Patriot act?
Among other things it allows the govt. to to attain private/confidential information about anyone working in private industry....any information. And without you knowing it's happening so you don't even have the right to defend yourself or fight back. So those confidentiality agreements that are signed by employee's really are meaningless if this is signed into law.
No warrant needed, no justification needed no nothin'.
Another enlargement of the Security State.
Drones up next.
-
Among other things it allows the govt. to to attain private/confidential information about anyone working in private industry....any information. And without you knowing it's happening so you don't even have the right to defend yourself or fight back. So those confidentiality agreements that are signed by employee's really are meaningless if this is signed into law.
No warrant needed, no justification needed no nothin'.
Another enlargement of the Security State.
Drones up next.
I don't think i like that. i wonder why someone feels that's needed in preventing terrorism. I'd like to hear the counter argument to it. What does this do to help them prevent terrorism? hwat can poentitally be in a personal file at a employer that can help them fight terrorism?
I read some of the CIS stuff. But it was just a few page summary.
-
I don't think i like that. i wonder why someone feels that's needed in preventing terrorism. I'd like to hear the counter argument to it. What does this do to help them prevent terrorism? hwat can poentitally be in a personal file at a employer that can help them fight terrorism?
I read some of the CIS stuff. But it was just a few page summary.
It's not really about preventing terrorism.
-
It's not really about preventing terrorism.
What do you think its "really" about and why?
Have you heard/read the counter argument to it? Have you heard/read the reasoning? If so what is it?
-
What do you think its "really" about and why?
Have you heard/read the counter argument to it? Have you heard/read the reasoning? If so what is it?
Just like the patriot act, it's about control
-
Just like the patriot act, it's about control
That's speculation.. What is your speculation based on?
So I take it you haven't really researched the motivations/reasoning for the patriot act and have assumed that's what it's all about?
-
That's speculation.. What is your speculation based on?
So I take it you haven't really researched the motivations/reasoning for the patriot act and have assumed that's what it's all about?
How's that speculation? In fact, it's the fundamental underpinning of every law.
Lot's of big business support, and just IMO, I think it's because they can give Uncle Sam info and not have to worry about sued because this act will exempt them from it.
-
How's that speculation? In fact, it's the fundamental underpinning of every law.
Lot's of big business support, and just IMO, I think it's because they can give Uncle Sam info and not have to worry about sued because this act will exempt them from it.
Thanks.
But what is the motivation of the government wanting this? What is their justification for wanting this info?
-
I would ask anyone to consider the all-encompassing difference between being aware, and being unaware.
-
Thanks.
But what is the motivation of the government wanting this? What is their justification for wanting this info?
Presumably for National Security...as in companies helping to alert them to threats beforehand.
IMO, it's bought and paid for anyway - indicative of what Whorewell was talking about in trying to ban lobbying. I can't offer you hard proof, but in my schooling and experience, whenever they pretty much clamp committee debate it's usually indicative that they have their minds made up and further discussion would be pointless.
-
Presumably for National Security...as in companies helping to alert them to threats beforehand.
IMO, it's bought and paid for anyway - indicative of what Whorewell was talking about in trying to ban lobbying. I can't offer you hard proof, but in my schooling and experience, whenever they pretty much clamp committee debate it's usually indicative that they have their minds made up and further discussion would be pointless.
I don't see how. That's what I would like to know. What could be in an employee file that could help that they wouldnt or shouldn't already know.
-
I don't see how. That's what I would like to know. What could be in an employee file that could help that they wouldnt or shouldn't already know.
I'm not sure what you mean. CISPA would be for sharing info like say Facebook is attacked by Chinese hackers. So, then facebook wants to give Uncle Sam data on the attack. Now...how much and what type of data should facebook give about your account which happens to be one of the ones attacked?
Personally identifiable info? Questionable pictures? Personally Identifiable info? The vaguer the law, the more info they can pass and not worry about reprisal from the consumer.
-
I'm not sure what you mean. CISPA would be for sharing info like say Facebook is attacked by Chinese hackers. So, then facebook wants to give Uncle Sam data on the attack. Now...how much and what type of data should facebook give about your account which happens to be one of the ones attacked?
Personally identifiable info? Questionable pictures? Personally Identifiable info? The vaguer the law, the more info they can pass and not worry about reprisal from the consumer.
If that happens shouldn't they just get a warrant and go to Facebook? That's why I don't understand the need for it.
-
If that happens shouldn't they just get a warrant and go to Facebook? That's why I don't understand the need for it.
I can't really can't tell if you're serious or just trolling.
If you're a government stooge what would you rather - Sit back and let Google send you all the information you need...maybe even some you don't as they think you might and everybody is immune. Or swear out a warrant before a judge, specifying the exact parameters needed, and then making sure you don't go beyond the color of law and get nailed for violating privacy with Google in a law suit?
-
They don't believe in warrants, OzmO. That's the problem.
-
I can't really can't tell if you're serious or just trolling.
If you're a government stooge what would you rather - Sit back and let Google send you all the information you need...maybe even some you don't as they think you might and everybody is immune. Or swear out a warrant before a judge, specifying the exact parameters needed, and then making sure you don't go beyond the color of law and get nailed for violating privacy with Google in a law suit?
Skip I am not trying to troll. I am telling you I disagree with this and am wondering what the reasoning is behind making laws like this and how it benefits the fight against terrorism.
-
Skip I am not trying to troll. I am telling you I disagree with this and am wondering what the reasoning is behind making laws like this and how it benefits the fight against terrorism.
Welcome to the Club.
-
Among other things it allows the govt. to to attain private/confidential information about anyone working in private industry....any information. And without you knowing it's happening so you don't even have the right to defend yourself or fight back. So those confidentiality agreements that are signed by employee's really are meaningless if this is signed into law.
No warrant needed, no justification needed no nothin'.
Another enlargement of the Security State.
Drones up next.
Which part does this? I scrolled through the Act (didn't read all of it). Not really clear to me that it gives the government that kind of access. http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-2013
Also, regardless of where people stand on this Act, they need to understand how serious cyber terrorism can be. Anything that can shut down computer systems, electricity, power, etc. can be almost as effective as bombing. If you're ever in DC go to the International Spy Museum and check out the cyber terrorism exhibit, which shows what can happen. Scary stuff.
-
-
Which part does this? I scrolled through the Act (didn't read all of it). Not really clear to me that it gives the government that kind of access. http://intelligence.house.gov/bill/cyber-intelligence-sharing-and-protection-act-2013
Also, regardless of where people stand on this Act, they need to understand how serious cyber terrorism can be. Anything that can shut down computer systems, electricity, power, etc. can be almost as effective as bombing. If you're ever in DC go to the International Spy Museum and check out the cyber terrorism exhibit, which shows what can happen. Scary stuff.
And what's the alternative? Is it worth it?
that's what i want to know from these who keep beating this "police state" drum.
-
And what's the alternative? Is it worth it?
that's what i want to know from these who keep beating this "police state" drum.
I've seen their explanation either. Very easy to play MMQB after an incident. Much harder to talk about what steps the government should take to try and protect the public, both before and during an attack.
Regarding cyber crimes, here is an example of what one little hoax can do:
Twitter Hoax Sparks Swift Stock Swoon
By TOM LAURICELLA, CHRISTOPHER S. STEWART and SHIRA OVIDE
A short-lived hoax on Twitter briefly erased $200 billion of value from U.S. stock markets on Tuesday, underscoring the vulnerability of financial markets to computerized trading programs that buy and sell shares without human intervention.
A tweet purportedly from the Associated Press just before 1:08 p.m. reported two explosions in the White House and that President Barack Obama had been injured. The posting sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbling roughly 145 points in an instant.
Minutes later, the AP said the tweet was a fake resulting from hacking by an outside group, and the White House confirmed there were no explosions. But traders employing so-called algorithms that automatically buy and sell shares after scanning news feeds—including posts on social media sites such as those run by Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. FB +0.50%—had already taken action.
The two-minute selling spree left many traders stunned and dismayed, even though the market quickly recovered the losses afterward.
"It's frustrating and scary that a tweet can erase hundreds of billions from the market in a short time, but that's the world we live in," said R.J. Grant, associate director of equity trading at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.
More
Stocks Notch Strong Finish After Reeling From Fake Tweet
.In a Twitter post, a group identifying itself as the Syrian Electronic Army took responsibility for the fake AP message. The group, which describes itself as "a group of enthusiastic Syrian youths" who support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, recently has targeted other media organizations. An AP spokesman said the news organization was unable to determine the origin of the hacking incident.
Securities and Exchange Commission officials are looking into trading activity that took place in response to the AP tweet, according to a spokesman, who said the agency routinely looks into irregular market action. Regulators looking into the activity said it was too early to tell if the tweet was intended to disrupt the market. Jenny Shearer, an FBI spokeswoman in Washington, said the bureau is also investigating the incident. She declined to provide further details.
. . . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323735604578441201605193488.html
-
And what's the alternative? Is it worth it?
that's what i want to know from these who keep beating this "police state" drum.
Status quo or what I would advocate which would have been to pass all the amendments helping to ensure privacy concerns were put to rest.
-
Status quo or what I would advocate which would have been to pass all the amendments helping to ensure privacy concerns were put to rest.
Yep, those were voted down because they defeated the real purpose of the entire bill though.
-
The same jerks will keep pushing this despite the fact that it's failed a few times.
'Dead for now:' CISPA halted in the Senate
Published time: April 25, 2013 21:30
Privacy advocates can breathe a sigh of relief as the controversial US Cyber Information Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) appears to be all but dead in the water, with all signs pointing to it being shelved by the Senate.
The bill, which was purportedly designed to allow the federal government to share private user information with corporations in situations of a suspected cyber threat, was the source of widespread ire from privacy advocates.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), chairman of the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, confirmed that CISPA’s passage seemed unlikely due to the bill’s lack of privacy protections, which the Senator deemed “insufficient.”
According to US News & World Report, a representative of the Senate committee stated that, though CISPA seems to be dead for the time being, issues and key provisions from that bill may still re-emerge.
"We're not taking [CISPA] up. Staff and senators are divvying up the issues and the key provisions everyone agrees would need to be handled if we're going to strengthen cybersecurity. They'll be drafting separate bills," said the representative.
President Obama had threatened to veto CISPA in its current form due to its lack of personal privacy provisions. A representative with the ACLU, which along with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) was one of the bill’s most vocal critics, also believed that the legislation now faces an uncertain future.
"I think it's dead for now," says Michelle Richardson, legislative council with the ACLU. "CISPA is too controversial, it's too expansive, it's just not the same sort of program contemplated by the Senate last year. We're pleased to hear the Senate will probably pick up where it left off last year," she told US News.
According to the EFF, CISPA represents a “dangerous” level of access to private information, and would allow the National Security Agency to obtain online communications data without a warrant.
According to Richardson, it should be three months before any cybersecurity legislation sees a vote in the Senate.
-
Good deal.
But those 220 or so fuck faces that voted in favor of companies legally demanding our social media passwords should be flogged and removed from office.
-
There is still a strong determination to realize the concept, and it just won't die.
The idea is that we are to create a conduit toward heightened awareness in order to prevent crime. So the question becomes how to control the vast manner of temptation and potential for unquestionable power that arises from the heightened awareness. Until we have an answer to that question, that every citizen can plainly understand, we cannot proceed in good conscience.
We have agencies of Intelligence for a reason. So we can live as we are supposed to live - FREE. But our Intelligence is repeatedly confronted with evidence, which they repeatedly ignore--so WHEN are we going to focus our attention upon the individuals operating these agencies?
Let's get real. I'm sick of certain people on here, waving their asses toward the biggest dick, trying to drag the rest of us down with them. Fuck you guys. Leave ME and MY RIGHTS out of it. You are absurd excuses for Americans.
-
I've seen their explanation either. Very easy to play MMQB after an incident. Much harder to talk about what steps the government should take to try and protect the public, both before and during an attack.
Regarding cyber crimes, here is an example of what one little hoax can do:
Twitter Hoax Sparks Swift Stock Swoon
By TOM LAURICELLA, CHRISTOPHER S. STEWART and SHIRA OVIDE
A short-lived hoax on Twitter briefly erased $200 billion of value from U.S. stock markets on Tuesday, underscoring the vulnerability of financial markets to computerized trading programs that buy and sell shares without human intervention.
A tweet purportedly from the Associated Press just before 1:08 p.m. reported two explosions in the White House and that President Barack Obama had been injured. The posting sent the Dow Jones Industrial Average tumbling roughly 145 points in an instant.
Minutes later, the AP said the tweet was a fake resulting from hacking by an outside group, and the White House confirmed there were no explosions. But traders employing so-called algorithms that automatically buy and sell shares after scanning news feeds—including posts on social media sites such as those run by Twitter Inc. and Facebook Inc. FB +0.50%—had already taken action.
The two-minute selling spree left many traders stunned and dismayed, even though the market quickly recovered the losses afterward.
"It's frustrating and scary that a tweet can erase hundreds of billions from the market in a short time, but that's the world we live in," said R.J. Grant, associate director of equity trading at Keefe, Bruyette & Woods.
More
Stocks Notch Strong Finish After Reeling From Fake Tweet
.In a Twitter post, a group identifying itself as the Syrian Electronic Army took responsibility for the fake AP message. The group, which describes itself as "a group of enthusiastic Syrian youths" who support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, recently has targeted other media organizations. An AP spokesman said the news organization was unable to determine the origin of the hacking incident.
Securities and Exchange Commission officials are looking into trading activity that took place in response to the AP tweet, according to a spokesman, who said the agency routinely looks into irregular market action. Regulators looking into the activity said it was too early to tell if the tweet was intended to disrupt the market. Jenny Shearer, an FBI spokeswoman in Washington, said the bureau is also investigating the incident. She declined to provide further details.
. . . .
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323735604578441201605193488.html
As despicable as hacking is, I would think the solution would not be to invade everyone's privacy.
You have seasoned professional traders who refuse to even enter the markets because of the presence of high frequency trading machines running on algorithyms. These things were illegal years ago, and now they're ruling the markets. The markets are vulnerable NOT because some clown chose to put out a fake story. The markets are vulnerable because of the stupid risks allowed to occur, ...and having high frequency trading machines controlling the wealth of the nation is just plain insane.
-
As despicable as hacking is, I would think the solution would not be to invade everyone's privacy.
You have seasoned professional traders who refuse to even enter the markets because of the presence of high frequency trading machines running on algorithyms. These things were illegal years ago, and now they're ruling the markets. The markets are vulnerable NOT because some clown chose to put out a fake story. The markets are vulnerable because of the stupid risks allowed to occur, ...and having high frequency trading machines controlling the wealth of the nation is just plain insane.
And of course we are talking about perceived values to begin with, which appears to be a theme of some sort.
-
As despicable as hacking is, I would think the solution would not be to invade everyone's privacy.
You have seasoned professional traders who refuse to even enter the markets because of the presence of high frequency trading machines running on algorithyms. These things were illegal years ago, and now they're ruling the markets. The markets are vulnerable NOT because some clown chose to put out a fake story. The markets are vulnerable because of the stupid risks allowed to occur, ...and having high frequency trading machines controlling the wealth of the nation is just plain insane.
I don't think the solution to cyber crimes is to invade everyone's privacy either. Is that what is happening?