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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
