Anonymous Makes An Interesting Point [Pic]

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in

I"m not saying they"re wrong or right, just putting this out there to mull over. I-A-B? Thoughts? Conspiracy?
There are 30 comments:
Male 4,075
From there civil suits can be made by citizens that can go directly to the supreme court for review.

I`m less afraid of the government blatantly ignoring the rules of law, and rather more concerned with what they consider child Pornography.
Can a naked baby on a bear skin rug be considered pornography? What about a 3 year old girl with no top on at a pool party or something.
Remember our best definition of what pornography is was famously given by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) when he said "I know it when I see it."
0
Reply
Male 4,075
@CrakrJak: Listen, I am in agreement that the government has wiggled out of some very important issues, Benghazi still blows my mind. And yes congressional hearings usually do little other than highlight the wrongdoing to the public and remove the guilty parties from any major positions, as in the Censure of Charles Rangel.
Be that as it may the executive nor the legislative branch are the oversight in this bill.

It`s the Officer for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, and the senior privacy and civil liberties officer of each department or agency of the Federal Government that receives cyber threat information shared with the Federal Government.

And they must annually and jointly submit to Congress a report assessing the privacy and civil liberties impact of the activities conducted by the Federal Government.
0
Reply
Male 715
didn`t it pass in the house last year to get squashed by the senate...
0
Reply
Male 1,421
So CISPA passed? Good, i`ll start checking popular US sites and copying the features that are inevitably going to disappear.. like anonymity.. funny how history twist and turns, .RU and it`s surrounding neighbours are going to be the havens of free speech. Me likey, USA based Internet has to go, no one country should have this much power over global network.
0
Reply
Male 260
And this is why i limite all my info about myself online. Amerika, drating you over for your "safety".
Only MY goverment can have MY info.
0
Reply
Male 500
now companies such as facebook would ba able to give out private info to the government without the user permission
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"see what I did there?"

Yeah, proved to the world that you`re a mindless ass.
0
Reply
Male 676
Of course Anonymous is upset, they are like untethered spoiled kids, that are about to be put in check.
0
Reply
Male 15,832
@Fwoogie2 Here ya go.
0
Reply
Male 1,803
CISPA?
0
Reply
Male 17,512
richanddead: Because the government, especially the executive branch, has been able to cover it`s ass in the wake of even more serious charges (Fast & Furious, Obstructing Congressional investigations, Ignoring FOIA requests, Illegally assisting Tony Rezko, Rod Blagojevich, Raila Odinga and others).

I seriously doubt any enforcement by congressional hearing would be fruitful. Enforcement through the courts could be held up indefinitely and getting the executive branch to cough up the evidence of their own wrongdoing would be damn near impossible.
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Surely I don`t need to understand exactly what is going on before telling others what`s happening and how they should feel. Silly woman.
0
Reply
Male 5,620
"hundreds of men and women got raped."

Hide yo wife
Hide yo kids
and hide yo husband
cuz` they rapin erebody out here!
0
Reply
Male 642
while anonymous is trying to distract the sheepish public with CISPA, thousands of children starved and hundreds of men and women got raped.

Clearly Anonymous is working for some organization or has planned this whole cispa thing to keep people`s minds from finding solutions to the world problems..

see what I did there?
0
Reply
Male 1,497
International copyright law can blow me.
0
Reply
Male 4,075
@CrakrJak:True, i agree, but the $1,000 is the minimum amount allowable fine to the government as a whole. Where as the $5,000 fines you are mentioning are maximums to individual employees. In the part it says "whichever is greater" the court can set any amount over $1000 and that it what allowable.

I`m not defending it, I`m just saying that, the gov. is not willful and untouchable as @tedgp was suggesting. If the gov. doesn`t follow the law they open themselves up to lawsuits, greedy lawers, and most likely a congressional hearing.
0
Reply
Male 4,075
@lauriloo: Notice it says "may not USE" not "may not OBTAIN"

Actually they are not allowed to even search for it, since the word "use" in this bill is to be applied to not simply the prosecution, but also the investigation of cybersecurity crimes. It clarifies that above when it states.

(2) AFFIRMATIVE SEARCH RESTRICTION- The Federal Government may not affirmatively search cyber threat information shared with the Federal Government under subsection (b) for a purpose other than a purpose referred to in paragraph (1).
0
Reply
Male 17,512
richanddead: $1,000 is a tiny sum to pay to violate a persons 4th amendment rights. That`s not even slap on the hand compared to the fine a private person would have to pay for violating another`s privacy.

In the case of "criminal violations" of the Act (Section 3 of the Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 552a(i) limits these so-called penalties to misdemeanors), an officer or employee of an agency may be fined up to $5,000 for:
Knowingly and willfully disclosing individually identifiable information which is prohibited from such disclosure by the Act or by agency regulations; or Willfully maintaining a system of records without having published a notice in the Federal Register of the existence of that system of records. In addition, an individual may be fined up to $5,000 for knowingly and willfully requesting or gaining access to a record about an individual under false pretenses.

$10,000 total.
0
Reply
Male 4,075
@tedgp: Exactly, because if they did it goes on to say...

"‘(1) IN GENERAL- If a department or agency of the Federal Government intentionally or willfully violates subsection (b)(3)(D) or subsection (c) with respect to the disclosure, use, or protection of voluntarily shared cyber threat information shared under this section, the United States shall be liable to a person adversely affected by such violation in an amount equal to the sum of--

‘(A) the actual damages sustained by the person as a result of the violation or $1,000, whichever is greater; and

‘(B) the costs of the action together with reasonable attorney fees as determined by the court."

0
Reply
Female 1,803
That exemption clause also includes library circulation records. Wonder if that ruins the part in the movie "Seven" where they get the library records to see who`s been reading books based on the 7 deadly sins to try to find out who the killer is...
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"Don`t let stuff like facts influence your silly opinions, lauriloo."

Notice it says "may not USE" not "may not OBTAIN"

Is that the fact you are referring to but failed to understand?
0
Reply
Male 1,442
So a week ago they was fussing about how making sure gun buyers don`t have mental health issues was violating their rights... but this week monitoring your internet to make sure you don`t say nasty comments about people is no problem?

I simplified it a bit but it seems your constitutional rights is whatever you make of it.
0
Reply
Male 2,841
DUN DUN DUN
0
Reply
Male 4,893

Don`t let stuff like facts influence your silly opinions, lauriloo.
0
Reply
Male 1,178
probably strategically placed to coincide with 420 too...
0
Reply
Male 3,285
@richanddead because we all know silly clauses in documents means governments will follow them right?
0
Reply
Male 4,075
@lauriloo: 169 Reps and 92 dems passed it on the 18th. But it can`t take any medical which is specifically mentioned on page 12 of the bill. Under the heading...

"‘(4) PROTECTION OF SENSITIVE PERSONAL DOCUMENTS- The Federal Government may not use the following information, containing information that identifies a person, shared with the Federal Government in accordance with subsection (b)"

"(H) Medical records"

link
0
Reply
Male 3,437
who just passed the what vote?
0
Reply
Female 1,803
Ah, Republicans. Feel free to pick and choose which amendments you think are important. I agree with some parts of it to prevent cyber hacking and stealing digital content but my entire online history, including medical, shouldn`t be up for grabs.
0
Reply
Male 20,178
Link: Anonymous Makes An Interesting Point [Pic] [Rate Link] - I`m not saying they`re wrong or right, just putting this out there to mull over. I-A-B? Thoughts? Conspiracy?
0
Reply