Originally Posted by
Hyde
I don't care what the constitution covers, i'm speaking about ideals. Until a crime is committed and rights are violated, there is no reason for any type of bill such as this, and if it does occur, it must only be temporary.
This would put the US in a position where they would be the aware of every threat in existence, and as such, it would give them way too much power. This leads to the same thing as the previous bills would have led to, more government influence on the internet, which as far as i'm concerned is a bad thing.
I think there is a failure to communicate here. The data being shared is only threat information, not data on any person. Given that for threat information to exist, there must be a threat, this is not random data without reason. The information in question is being shared FROM the gov't TO private entities. So the gov't does not end up with more information. The bill doesn't give anyone the ability to censor the internet, actually the internet is not even mentioned.
And hell, even if they did, why is it so bad for the gov't to know about every threat in existence??
Once again, why should abstract data have privacy rights? I understand why a person would need privacy, but cats or dogs or cars or trees don't particularly need it.
You have read the bill, right Hyde?