HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Why Anonymous threaten to...

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:08 PM

 

Why Anonymous threaten to interrupt the SOTU address: CISPA. Here's what the ACLU say about CISPA:

Part of the reason, at least, with PFC Manning in torture conditions for 1,000 days and the NDAA having been again signed with its 1021 section providing for the indefinite detention of US citizens without trial or representation...

Jacob Appelbaum ‏@ioerror

#CISPA is back - we need to ring phones off the hook to stop it (again):
http://www.aclu.org/blog/technology-and-liberty-national-security/cispa-claws-back-life … #PrivacyMatters
Retweeted by fr0g5

The House cybersecurity bill that allows the National Security Agency (NSA) and the military to collect your private internet records is scheduled for an encore appearance on Wednesday. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-MI) and Ranking Member Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) will reintroduce the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA), which news reports say will be the same bill that passed the House of Representatives last year.

That's right, the same bill that allows companies to turn over your sensitive internet records directly to the NSA and the Department of Defense without requiring them to make even a reasonable effort to protect your privacy. The same bill that lets the government use the information it collects for cybersecurity purposes "to protect the national security of the United States"—a concept that is, of course, undefined and incredibly expansive. Here we are, ten months later, with a much-deserved veto threat from the administration, a smarter Senate alternative, and an Executive Order that will address part of the information-sharing issue—yet the House starts with the same old privacy-busting bill as before.

Because of your activism last year, big and important changes were made to the Senate cyber bill, including significant privacy protections. Let's do it again House-side. If the House wants smart cyber legislation that also protects privacy, it needs to ensure that the programs are civilian-led, minimize the sharing of sensitive personal information between government and corporations, and protect collected information from non-cyber uses.

So bone up on what CISPA does, see the many organizations from left to right who have opposed CISPA, compare it to the far better legislation in the Senate, and read why even the Obama administration threatened to veto this bill last year. And get ready to fight for your right to online privacy once again.

---

So why protest in a manner inconvenient to others? Martin Luther King, Jr. answers that question:

Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word “tension.” I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth....

The purpose of our direct action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation. Too long has our beloved Southland been bogged down in a tragic effort to live in monologue rather than dialogue.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/01/mlk-and-the-peace-process.html

10 replies, 1097 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply Why Anonymous threaten to interrupt the SOTU address: CISPA. Here's what the ACLU say about CISPA: (Original post)
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 OP
randome Feb 2013 #1
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #2
woo me with science Feb 2013 #3
ProSense Feb 2013 #4
woo me with science Feb 2013 #6
ProSense Feb 2013 #7
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #5
woo me with science Feb 2013 #8
Fire Walk With Me Feb 2013 #9
ProSense Feb 2013 #10

Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:12 PM

1. I'm sure this action -not that I believe any will occur-

will bring the government to its collective knees regarding CISPA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:24 PM

2. Theyre allowing the government to spy on us for our own good. We should welcome their efforts.

Just like the civilians murdered by drones should be grateful for the efforts of the CIA thugs and those that order the murders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:15 PM

3. Obama has already drafted a CISPA-like executive order in the event it fails.

in the event that it fails.

After several "cybersecurity" orders akin to CISPA were rejected in Congress because of concerns about privacy, Obama wrote an executive order which will force through the internet-censoring and -controlling measures. It was released to the press last September, and it's in the news again today.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/28459/cispa-returns-could-see-president-obama-issue-an-executive-order-on-cybersecurity/index.html
http://blogs.federaltimes.com/federal-times-blog/2013/02/12/white-house-to-release-cyber-executive-order-wednesday/
http://www.presstv.ir/usdetail/288560.html

Remember that Obama also signed ACTA and then tried to hide it from the US press by calling it a "national security issue."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2058658
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/us-signs-international-anti-piracy-accord.ars

The administration also has an internet ID plan in progress which has never been discussed with the public.

http://www.fiercegovernmentit.com/story/nist-releases-nstic-pilots-solicitation/2012-02-01 (with links)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002257531
http://www.techi.com/2011/01/obamas-national-internet-id/

Thanks to Republicans and complicit corporate Democrats, the US is *already* surveilling all of us on the internet in violation of the Constitution. And a massive spy center is being constructed in Utah for collecting all phone and internet/email data on all of us. President Obama has supported legislation that will make this warrantless surveillance "legal."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002656593
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021855750

The definition of possible "terroristic" activity has been ridiculously expanded to justify surveilling those who oppose the destruction of our civil rights, and we already know that Occupy has been labeled potentially terroristic and subjected to coordinated federal surveillance and violence.

And now Obama has claimed the right to murder American citizens suspected of terroristic activity without need for evidence or due process.

No, nothing to worry about here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:34 PM

4. ACLU:

That's right, the same bill that allows companies to turn over your sensitive internet records directly to the NSA and the Department of Defense without requiring them to make even a reasonable effort to protect your privacy. The same bill that lets the government use the information it collects for cybersecurity purposes "to protect the national security of the United States"—a concept that is, of course, undefined and incredibly expansive. Here we are, ten months later, with a much-deserved veto threat from the administration, a smarter Senate alternative, and an Executive Order that will address part of the information-sharing issue—yet the House starts with the same old privacy-busting bill as before.

Because of your activism last year, big and important changes were made to the Senate cyber bill, including significant privacy protections. Let's do it again House-side. If the House wants smart cyber legislation that also protects privacy, it needs to ensure that the programs are civilian-led, minimize the sharing of sensitive personal information between government and corporations, and protect collected information from non-cyber uses.

So bone up on what CISPA does, see the many organizations from left to right who have opposed CISPA, compare it to the far better legislation in the Senate, and read why even the Obama administration threatened to veto this bill last year. And get ready to fight for your right to online privacy once again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProSense (Reply #4)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:25 PM

6. Your spin is showing, Prosense,

Last edited Tue Feb 12, 2013, 06:35 PM - Edit history (1)

and we have been through this many times before, as you well know.

Your posts repeatedly try to spin history to suggest, first, that President Obama has fought for privacy provisions in these bills, when history does not support that claim at all. He threatened to veto the first CISPA bill, probably for political cover, but he was simultaneously backing Joe Lieberman's equally intrusive version of the bill well before any privacy amendments were introduced.

Your posts also have repeatedly attempted to spin the ACLU's position to suggest that they are happy with these bills. You have taken quotes out of context and ignored the most important information in ACLU releases. For example, the last time we argued about this, you posted the ACLU's approval of the privacy amendments to the Lieberman bill, but completely omitted the most important part of their comment, which was that they strongly opposed the bill all along but considered it to be "a train leaving the station" and thus felt forced to focus on trying to get some semblance of privacy added to the bill. The truth is that they were not happy about it at all. And you also omitted their observation that amendments were in the works to remove the privacy protections.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1062058

Thus, I am not surprised that you quote the ACLU here and do not provide a corresponding link, since in the past actually *reading* what you link to tends to undermine your argument.

This is another serious assault on our internet freedom, and it has been launched again and again, relentlessly, despite the public's clear outcry and multiple rebuffs. And now it is back in the form of an executive order, like so many other recent outrages.

The President's history and behavior on this issue and the others I have detailed above make it abundantly clear that the American public must watch him like a hawk and do not have the luxury of sitting back, withholding our protests, and trusting that this President will honor our privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #6)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:27 PM

7. The post is verbatim text from the ACLU statement in the OP.

Your comment is beyond silly.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #3)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 02:44 PM

5. Thank you for the detailed post!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #5)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:28 PM

8. You're welcome. Thank YOU for posting about this.

The commercials will, of course, continue, but it's important to keep in mind the larger picture and history here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Original post)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 01:49 AM

9. Apparently fears were correct: Obama signed SOMETHING.

 

The Executive Order The Press Agreed To Keep Secret For Five Hours

http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/the-executive-order-the-press-agreed-to-keep-secret-for-five?dummy=1

Shortly before 4:20 p.m. Tuesday, the White House emailed reporters that President Obama had signed a highly anticipated Executive Order aimed at protecting cyber security.

The order — setting up new programs aimed at stopping online espionage and terrorism — was already the law of the land, signed by the president. But it was also secret.

The document was "embargoed until delivery of the President's in the State of the Union address" — despite the fact it had already been signed.

Such embargoes — imposed unilaterally, rather than agreed-upon — are not binding on news organizations, which weigh the urgency of the news against the headache of, for instance, being dropped from the White House's distribution list. BuzzFeed abided by the embargo, having participated in a background briefing on the move, but thought it appropriate to report on the unusual delay.

(More at the link.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fire Walk With Me (Reply #9)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 07:46 PM

10. Here is an

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread