Originally Posted by JayStar
I do believe this, I express them daily. I agree that America isn't a free country but that doesn't mean it's citizens don't have rights. You're a fool to believe that the government has taken away these rights. But no country is free.. no country that isn't doomed beyond repair.
A slave who gets chocolate on Saturdays isn't exactly better off than a slave who doesn't.
The vicious cycle of debt slavery that runs this world is a bitch. Unless you can become a part of the elite and are no longer trapped in the cycle, your "rights" are about as worthless as a piece of chocolate to a slave.
What you fail to understand is that money runs the world, your rights mean nothing if money wishes to exterminate and oppress you.
To be truly free means to be fully able to do whatever you want, whenever you want to, however you want to within the realms of physical possibility(quite the constraint).
In any case, I oppose this bill because I quite frankly dislike any attempts from big brother to intrude upon what I deem to be my privacy.
Hoss.
On the topic of American freedom, I've always admired the Constitution. It amuses me to no end how people and companies have to obey it and thus if they want to be able to do something unconstitutional then they have to find a way to cunningly bypass it.
Don't want people handing out pamphlets exposing your company's dodgy business practices outside on the street? Want the police to get rid of them?
NOPE, Constitution!
On topic: I may not be a US citizen, but I really do not like the thought of the government being able to spy on you just in case you might be engaging in copyright infringement. My opinion is that the successful passing of this bill may encourage other countries to do the same, resulting in more widespread privacy issues.
We already have something similar in my country - if a company suspects that their content has been illegally shared (either uploaded or downloaded) by a system under your IP address, they can contact your ISP and they have a 3 strikes system in place per company.
The law, unfortunately, works as "guilty unless proven innocent" and as such if you cannot prove that the content wasn't shared by your IP then that's a strike against your name. 1st strike is a warning, 2nd is temporary service suspension, 3rd is a $20,000 fine
Don't want people handing out pamphlets exposing your company's dodgy business practices outside on the street? Want the police to get rid of them?
NOPE, Constitution!
On topic: I may not be a US citizen, but I really do not like the thought of the government being able to spy on you just in case you might be engaging in copyright infringement. My opinion is that the successful passing of this bill may encourage other countries to do the same, resulting in more widespread privacy issues.
We already have something similar in my country - if a company suspects that their content has been illegally shared (either uploaded or downloaded) by a system under your IP address, they can contact your ISP and they have a 3 strikes system in place per company.
The law, unfortunately, works as "guilty unless proven innocent" and as such if you cannot prove that the content wasn't shared by your IP then that's a strike against your name. 1st strike is a warning, 2nd is temporary service suspension, 3rd is a $20,000 fine
Originally Posted by Hyde
A slave who gets chocolate on Saturdays isn't exactly better off than a slave who doesn't.
The vicious cycle of debt slavery that runs this world is a bitch. Unless you can become a part of the elite and are no longer trapped in the cycle, your "rights" are about as worthless as a piece of chocolate to a slave.
What you fail to understand is that money runs the world, your rights mean nothing if money wishes to exterminate and oppress you.
Although your analogy is meaning full.. it's quite out of place.
Even though rights are regulated they're much better than being a slave with chocolate. I don't fail to understand the power of wealth. Instead, I understand the necessity of government [at times].
Picture a world where everything is fair. No taxes, freedom to anything, freedom to travel anywhere. This world sounds nice, yes. But is it realistic? In today's age you and I both understand the necessity of government. However, I rejoice in the ability to speak against it, a privilege many other people do not share. That is all I'm saying.
Just because I don't have full freedom, doesn't mean I'm a slave.
Originally Posted by ImmortalCow
What? No, it can't.
The flow of information specified is from gov't entities TO private entities.
The data mentioned is already being collected, the question is whether they can share this data. As you obviously know because you have obviously read up on it, the data pertains only to significant cyberthreats as specified in the bill.
They cannot use this bill to go on a hacker witch hunt because the threat needs to already be specified. Gov't entities cannot use this as an excuse to tap in to ISPs because the bill mainly pertains to gov't entities sharing information with private entities in order to increase security - not to hunt down perpetrators.
Sharing of cybersecurity information is a GOOD THING. This is not sharing of videos of some guy taking a shit or of your browsing history. This is specific information about specific vulnerabilities.
How can having a specific definition of cyberthreat, and a mandate to encourage threat information sharing, be used to tap in to an ISP? Pray tell.
To be honest, the rewriting of the bill does calm me down and helps me to not think of it as SOPA deux, but now I have a whole other issue. From what I gathered in your post, the gov't isn't really receiving any new information here, and is instead only requesting to act on any information it gathers. Is this bill a giant multi-use warrant then? How is this
Also, I'm only reading bits and pieces of the wiki and frankly the topic isn't that interesting to me, so bear with any misinformation I've got going on.
<&Fish>: did you just infract the toribot?
<&Fish>: you're fired
<&Fish>: you're fired
<JSnuffMARS> sounds like a drug-addiction or mastu(I'll censor that word)
<bishopONE>: also yeah fisting
<mwah> Gynx is it true you got admin over hero because hes from pakistan
Originally Posted by JayStar
Although your analogy is meaning full.. it's quite out of place.
Even though rights are regulated they're much better than being a slave with chocolate. I don't fail to understand the power of wealth. Instead, I understand the necessity of government [at times].
Picture a world where everything is fair. No taxes, freedom to anything, freedom to travel anywhere. This world sounds nice, yes. But is it realistic? In today's age you and I both understand the necessity of government. However, I rejoice in the ability to speak against it, a privilege many other people do not share. That is all I'm saying.
Just because I don't have full freedom, doesn't mean I'm a slave.
The analogy is not out of place. You are restricted from doing whatever you want, you work in order to pay off what is an astronomical imaginary figure that shouldn't be approaching those levels. Your freedoms are sprinkles atop a steaming-pile-of-shit-flavored ice cream.
Western society is an advanced version of feudalism. The government owns your land, you pay taxes. You have rights to your land, but, if you want to build something on your land, chances are you'll have to go out and pay for a permit. Your rights are a sparkly distraction from reality. I feel no need to rejoice that the government allows me to do what I should be able to do without any input from the government. If you lived on a fief and your lord allowed you to bitch about the way he ran shit, would it be any better than not being able to do so?
Whether or not my ideals are realistic is of no concern to me. Accepting a cruel world is conforming to the system, and the last thing i'd want to do as a person is that.
Hoss.
