Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Compare cell phone plans using Wirefly's innovative plan comparison tool ×
United States Government

US Senate Passes the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act 74-21 (dailydot.com) 157

blottsie writes with news that the U.S. Senate voted 74-21 in favor of CISA, a controversial cybersecurity bill. All five amendments submitted in an attempt to bolster privacy failed to pass. From The Guardian's coverage: Try asking the bill’s sponsors how the bill will prevent cyberattacks or force companies and governments to improve their defenses. They can’t answer. They will use buzzwords like “info-sharing” yet will conveniently ignore the fact that companies and the government can already share information with each other as is. There were barely any actual cybersecurity experts who were for the bill. A large group of respected computer scientists and engineers were against it. So were cyberlaw professors. Civil liberties groups uniformly opposed (and were appalled by) the bill. So did consumer groups. So did the vast majority of giant tech companies. Yet it still sailed through the Senate, mostly because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that they’re crafting legislation about.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US Senate Passes the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act 74-21

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Fuck yeah!
    • The Japanese have only a single swear word in their vocabulary (look it up). That said, all I can say to this Congress is "baka" (idiot) to the nth power. I got your cisa right here and I will cut you with it!
      • More lawyers performing brain surgery.
      • kusottare - shitdrip
        chikusho - SHIT!
        baka - idiot
        aho - idiot

        Just off the top of my head, also in terms of dealing with true idiots "baka" is about the least insulting word you can use. Far more damaging is referring to someone as one of various animals like "Mr Pig" is far more insulting to someone that being called an utter moron in english.

  • by spacepimp ( 664856 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:14PM (#50813485) Homepage

    Blaming ignorance is more credit than they deserve. Willful ignorance is a choice of action, whereas ignorance is sometime forgivable. If they listened to any of the concerned parties they certainly didn't show it here.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      They voted for government and against people.

      • by chihowa ( 366380 )

        They had to. Concentrating this last little bit of wealth is going to be the hardest part so far and they need to be ready when it starts cutting into the bread-and-circuses fund. Expect much more of this in the near future.

    • by gcswt ( 4309907 )
      The type of language used in the summary doesn't help at all. The jabs about e-mail knowledge are akin to a non-techie saying "technical people don't know anything about people." It's adolescent and completely unproductive. It's okay to disagree, but do it with some intelligence.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @07:24PM (#50813917)

        Disagree, I think it's completely relevant and on topic. The people writing these bills have absolutely no idea how the technology works, but are quite comfortable throwing away our privacy rights based on that. They are technophobic imbeciles who are driven by fear, and that's a scary thing because they have a lot of power. This is the perfect example because apparently NOBODY except the lawmakers wants this legislation, yet they don't care and vote based on their fear. It's very important that people realize the current set of lawmakers are almost entirely out of touch with modern technology, and that can have a massive stifling effect on our economy which a large portion of is based on this tech. We need young, new blood in these seats.

        • they dont vote based upon fear, not the one you think of, they vote based upon fear of their bottom line decreasing lol in other words they vote based upon who pays them the most....
      • by Anonymous Coward
        Except when IT'S TRUE. These people have their emails read and summarized by underlings, the summaries printed out in large type font on legal paper, double spaced with a wide side column for annotations and responses. Then the underlings type the responses and annotations up in separate files, and sometimes the responses actually get sent as an email. The Congress Critters never see the emails at all, because they either do not understand it, or are afraid they will be seen as understanding it. Wipe it
    • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:48PM (#50813725) Journal

      Honestly, I find it hard to believe ignorance has much to do with it at all. There are some big name companies on the record as completely supporting FISA, including Xerox. (Funny how Xerox also seems to have most of the contracts with local govt. for maintaining speed cameras.... Just maybe, they stand to profit any time government takes on some additional responsibility concerning technology? Hmm....)

    • by jdavidb ( 449077 )
      Also, they aren't just ignorant about technology. They are ignorant about liberty.
    • It's not ignorance, it's corruption. But it looks like nobody wants to see that elephant in the room. This will not effect the elections...

      • by cdrudge ( 68377 )

        It's not ignorance, it's corruption.

        You say that like it can't be both. It most definitely is both.

  • by rubycodez ( 864176 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:15PM (#50813501)

    Senators don't pass bills they know nothing about, they pass bills they see as having some sort of benefit. Benefits might be popularity, might be to appease donator, might be something darker. What benefit did they get from passing this and from whom? Who encouraged them to pass it?

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:20PM (#50813529)

      Exactly! The Senators who passed it very likely knew exactly what they are doing - appeasing their largest donors and extending the power of the government.

    • Well, there's a benefit to not being in the minority too. So a totally ignorant member of Congress, merely told that "some computer bill is winning the vote 70-24" would probably vote for it. Cause odds are*, if over 2/3 of people in the Senate want it, it's a good law.

      *There are spectacular counter-examples. But those tend to be "nobody go fired for buying IBM" moments.

    • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:34PM (#50813609) Homepage
      correction, senators dont pass bills that dont help them politically. they dont really care what is in the bill as long as its politically worth it to them
      • correction, senators dont pass bills that dont help them politically. they dont really care what is in the bill as long as its politically worth it to them

        In a representative democracy the people elect representatives to enact laws on their behalf. At least theoretically. In practice, once elected, representatives don't have any obligation other than to enact laws to benefit themselves. If you need legislation in your favor there is a price to pay.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          If people realized that the US is supposed to be a constitutional republic things might be different.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Considering the bill's purpose is to get information about the people voting for them, the purpose is crystal clear. Information is power, and they just grabbed a lot of it.

    • by Bruce66423 ( 1678196 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @09:00PM (#50814413)
      The fingerprints of the NSA etc are all over this bill. The only question is whether we will ever discover how many of them were blackmailed into giving it their support. The scale of the vote however does suggest that there was a lot of pressure being exerted.

      The phrase 'deep state' was invented to refer to the intelligence community in Turkey that used to have enormous influence in the running of that country. However it is a term which present experience shows it may be more applicable to the US than is nice to think about.
  • is 'American Politician'.

  • Baaaa!

    Seriously, I know there's that guy who posts that on every thread, but today it's true.

    You're all sheep.

    And you don't live in a Democracy.

    You don't even live in a Democratic Republic.

    In a Democratic Republic you have Rights.

    You only have serfdom.

    And no privacy.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    They can't even pass a budget.

    • It passed the House in April, and the President supports it. It's essentially a done deal.
      • Another nail in the coffin of privacy, but a great boost to aid the move in the EU to ban the transfer of data to US companies outright. Since privacy legislation is much more stringent in the EU, that should help a sizeable portion of the Earth's inhabitants. And as a bonus it will reduce the unassailable positions now occupied by Google, Amazon etc. and stimulate EU companies to create alternatives. As each ones home market is too small to dominate the rest, that should give us a bit more choice.

        • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          Think of trying to sell US based cloud products to the wider world after this legal "collect it all" public/private relationship..
          Over time the leadership of the US based cloud provider might, have to, did, would, was asked to share all data with the US gov as a default request.
          Legally and fully protected your data is collected.
          5 eye nations get a look. Other 3rd party nations the US really likes get a free look too. Some might be competitors.
          Most nations are going to be very aware of who gets their
        • by dryeo ( 100693 )

          They'll be a trade deal sooner or later to allow businesses to sue countries over privacy protection (and any other pesky laws that pro

          • by dryeo ( 100693 )

            Should be
            They'll be a trade deal sooner or later to allow businesses to sue countries over privacy protection (and any other pesky laws that protect citizens). Can't have sovereign nations passing laws that are bad for business, especially businesses that pay lip service to pretending to be American.

      • Actually it doesn't appear to have passed the house [congress.gov] yet. I know the house has passed some related [congress.gov] bills [congress.gov] but hasn't passed this one yet. So while not on the way to the presidents desk at the moment it likely will be shortly. I fully expect my hawkish, freedom hating, former nuclear football carrying in the Regan administration, representative to support this. Then again he called me about USA FREEDOM act which he cosponsored as he didn't like how I was representing the bill and him weeks after it passed. Wh
        • The House passed a version of this bill. All that needs to be done before handing off to the President is reconciliation; it's done.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:26PM (#50813583)
    • Senate.Gov. The United States Senate

      Request unable to be completed.

      The submitted https request was not able to be completed at this time.
      Please retry your request using http. This may require disabling some browser based plug-ins.

      http://www.senate.gov/ [senate.gov]

    • by Raseri ( 812266 )
      One of my senators voted Yea, the other Nay. At least they cancel each other out. This is just one of the many perks of living in one of the most politically deadlocked states in the country.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Another fine piece of legislation co-authored by Dianne Feinstein. What the hell is wrong with California that they have kept this cunt in office for over 20 years?

    • Another fine piece of legislation co-authored by Dianne Feinstein. What the hell is wrong with California that they have kept this cunt in office for over 20 years?

      You do realize your less than clever use of cunt undermines your otherwise stellar argument, don't you faggot??

  • by rmdingler ( 1955220 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:39PM (#50813653) Journal
    Following the "Ho-hum" reaction to the Snowden revelations, including but not limited to, pervasive evidence the US was spying on its own citizens...

    well, there was really no point in the government continuing to pretend it wasn't happening.

    This legislation just codifies it.

    • Following the "Ho-hum" reaction to the Snowden revelations, including but not limited to, pervasive evidence the US was spying on its own citizens...

      Was it really "Ho-hum" or was it all carefully presented and hidden away to give that impression?

  • by kheldan ( 1460303 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:41PM (#50813659) Journal

    Yet it still sailed through the Senate, mostly because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that theyâ(TM)re crafting legislation about.

    Bullshit. They know damned well what they're doing: They're legalizing more and more surveillance and privacy violation of U.S. citizens, because they can. Them, them, fuck them.

    • by cfalcon ( 779563 )

      Right? It's not like all the sane and normal groups opposing this just FORGOT to mention why it was a bad idea.

      Of course they knew what they were voting for.

    • Correct, because they can and because, as I said already (and was modded in a weird way) Government = Evil [slashdot.org]

  • by fnj ( 64210 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:43PM (#50813679)

    The sets of ignorant Congressmen, stupid Congressmen, and evil Congressmen are all large. The union of all three encompasses almost the entire membership.

    It wouldn't be quite so bad if only any one of those sets were problematic and we could concentrate all efforts on obliterating it. As it is, our only roles are Sisyphus, Don Quixote, or the ostrich with its head in the sand.

  • Maximum evil (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Okian Warrior ( 537106 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @06:47PM (#50813711) Homepage Journal

    The actual vote tally [govtrack.us] shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill (74 for, 21 against, 5 abstain).

    If anyone believes that voting for R (or D) is worse than the other side, or how it's the "lessor of two evils", feel free to explain this.

    There are a finite number of votes in any term. When our representatives vote against the interests of the people in all votes, there is no more damage that they can do. There can be no "lesser" evil - they're both at "maximum evil".

    I took a look at the text of the recent Iowa poll [google.com], the one that puts Carson ahead of Trump that everyone is talking about. I couldn't see any obvious bias (a good thing), but this question stood out:

    Which do you think is the bigger risk for the future of the country?

    74 To elect a president who has not held office so does not know the processes and procedures of governing

    101 To elect the same sort of person who has served as president for many decades who will likely continue to do things the way they have been done with the same effect

    25 Not sure

    The numbers are total Dem+Rep respondents in the poll.

    This is interesting because it shows that Americans (in Iowa, at least) are waking up to the realization that electing career politicians is not in their best interests.

    With respect to Democrat readers, your only viable candidate on that side (Hillary Clinton) is a weak contender, while the Republican side appears to have both Trump and Carson as strong candidates.

    With respect to the Republican readers, neither of your strong candidates is a career politican. One doesn't need to sell his influence to moneyed interests.

    This may be the beginning of the end for career politicians and national parties.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      With respect to Democrat readers, your only viable candidate on that side (Hillary Clinton) is a weak contender, while the Republican side appears to have both Trump and Carson as strong candidates.

      Don't count out the Bern yet. He's already tracking better than Obama was 8 years ago (compared to Hillary)

      And while Hillary is definitely a career politico, she's never actually won an election for anything in her life.

      • With respect to Democrat readers, your only viable candidate on that side (Hillary Clinton) is a weak contender, while the Republican side appears to have both Trump and Carson as strong candidates.

        Don't count out the Bern yet. He's already tracking better than Obama was 8 years ago (compared to Hillary)

        And while Hillary is definitely a career politico, she's never actually won an election for anything in her life.

        I stay away from the "the other side will do *this* when elected" rhetoric, and try to confine myself to analysis of present situation and past performance. Please bear that in mind when replying - I'm not being a partisan echo chamber.

        Money is a pretty good indicator [pbs.org] of who will win an election in this country. With a 95% success rate, it's a pretty-good rule of thumb to use.

        Bernie doesn't have his own money, so he has to rely on donations. Donations come from moneyed interests in return for political favo

        • by Trinsic ( 44613 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @09:05PM (#50814441)

          Perhaps you haven't been paying much attention to the primary races, and I certainly can't blame you for that. I seldom have until this year. But when it comes to money, Bernie is doing just fine thanks to large numbers of small donations. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics... [go.com]

          As for being able to win in the general election, hypothetical polls show that Bernie does just as well as Hillary in match-ups against likely republican candidates. http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-th... [nbcnews.com]

          For once we have a chance to vote for something other than one of two lizards, and there is a real chance he can win. Lets not let that chance go to waste ;)

        • He also says things which are easy to (unfairly) attack, such as sticking with the term "Democratic Socialism". Socialism is closely aligned in the public's mind with Communism, the USSR and cold war, and to a lesser extend the Fascism of WWII Italy.

          Those terms aren't nearly as toxic as they've been in the past. When was the last time this country fought "commies?"

          WWII Italy? How many voters today are really influenced by something from the 40s and 50s?
          Musolini died in 45
          McCarthyism and all the "Red scare" stuff lasted well into the 50s (speaking of which, woo woo Fallout 4)
          Cuban Missile Crisis was in the 60s
          The wall fell in 89.

          The 90s, 00s and teens have been pretty quiet on the "commies" front. Mostly just Putin riding around on horseback shirtle

          • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

            Those terms aren't nearly as toxic as they've been in the past. When was the last time this country fought "commies?"

            The Cold War wasn't that long ago. Anyone over the age of 50 will remember their elementary school drills, teaching us to dive under our desks, or put hour heads between our legs, and kissing our asses goodbye. And, while that was useless, Romney was correct when Obama chided him for choosing Russia as a threat.

      • We're still more than a year from the election and it's anyone's game to lose. At this point in 2011, Herman Cain was beating Romney.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        And while Hillary is definitely a career politico, she's never actually won an election for anything in her life.

        I'm surprised at how many people have been parroting this idiotic statement lately. You know Hillary served two terms as a senator, right? Did you think she did that by losing the election twice? Use your brain.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If anyone believes that voting for R (or D) is worse than the other side, or how it's the "lessor of two evils", feel free to explain this.

      Of the 21 senators who voted against this bill, 14 were Democrats (15 if you count Sanders, who is in the senate as an Independent but presently running for the Democratic presidential nomination).

      Or, to put it slightly differently: 14/44 (= 32%) of Democratic senators voted against this, versus 6/54 (= 11%) of Republican senators. Democrats were three times more likely to vote against this.

      So, yes, voting for R is worse. It's unfortunate that neither party is *good* (ie voted strongly against this bill) on

      • by Trinsic ( 44613 )

        So, what the numbers are saying is that if the senate where 100% Republican, this bill would have passed with a veto-proof majority. And if the senate where 100% Democrat, this bill would have passed with a veto-proof majority.

        Some difference ;)

        It seems to me voting for these same Democrats is just telling them it's okay to vote Yes for bills like this.

    • by Xyrus ( 755017 )

      This may be the beginning of the end for career politicians and national parties.

      Hardly. This is just another step along the downward spiral. Predictable even.

      It seems to be progressing faster than I thought it would though. I didn't expect someone like Trump could actually be a viable presidential candidate until the 2030's.

    • Government = Evil [slashdot.org]

      That is an axiom. Some do not understand it.

    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

      The actual vote tally [govtrack.us] shows that both Democrats and Republicans voted for the bill (74 for, 21 against, 5 abstain).

      If anyone believes that voting for R (or D) is worse than the other side, or how it's the "lessor of two evils", feel free to explain this.

      This is true...ish. A majority of both parties voted FOR the bill.

      OTOH, Democrats were THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY to vote against it than Republicans. Of the 21 votes against, only 6 were Republicans. So in the binary system we have, if you care about things like this, your best move is to register as a Democrat. That way, you are still free to vote for the better candidate in November (regardless of which party they are in), but you can also push the better candidate(s) in the primary, in the party that is m

  • because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that theyâ(TM)re crafting legislation about.

    Rest assured that those they actually work for are well aware of the technology their minions are crafting legislation about.

  • Who voted NO? (Score:5, Informative)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @07:02PM (#50813813) Journal

    Here is a list of the 21 senators who voted AGAINST this CISA surveillance bill.

    Baldwin (D-WI)
    Booker (D-NJ)
    Brown (D-OH)
    Cardin (D-MD)
    Coons (D-DE)
    Crapo (R-ID)
    Daines (R-MT)
    Franken (D-MN)
    Heller (R-NV)
    Leahy (D-VT)
    Lee (R-UT)
    Markey (D-MA)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Merkley (D-OR)
    Risch (R-ID)
    Sanders (I-VT)
    Sullivan (R-AK)
    Tester (D-MT)
    Udall (D-NM)
    Warren (D-MA)
    Wyden (D-OR)

    Also, Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Ted Cruz (R-Canada) did not vote at all, because they are huge pussies. Remember that the next time you believe any of those turds are in favor of your liberty.

    • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      Are they any worse than the D's and R's that voted for the bill?

      • Re:Who voted NO? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PopeRatzo ( 965947 ) on Wednesday October 28, 2015 @09:09AM (#50816157) Journal

        Are they any worse than the D's and R's that voted for the bill?

        Yes, because they showed cowardice. They wanted to be able to tell prospective voters that they're all for personal liberty, while not upsetting the powers that be. At least go on the record as standing for something so you can be held accountable. Have the courage of your convictions.

        Remember, voting on bills is the only goddamn thing we pay senators to do. They get $174,000 per year to work about 100 days, and these sonsabitches can't even manage to be there to vote?

        • by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          That's funny. I know you would never have said that if it was the Ds not showing up.

    • by T.E.D. ( 34228 )

      Also, Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), and Ted Cruz (R-Canada) did not vote at all, because they are huge

      ... or it could be because they are out campaigning for POTUS, rather than hanging around DC doing their jobs. Not that they couldn't be ducking to avoid taking a stand on a controversial issue, but I seriously doubt this issue will be seen as a big deal by the average Republican primary voter. Incompetence is usually a much more likely cause than malice.

      • ... or it could be because they are out campaigning for POTUS, rather than hanging around DC doing their jobs.

        I'll bet they'd have flown cross-country for a campaign dinner with Sheldon Adelson.

        I seriously doubt this issue will be seen as a big deal by the average Republican primary voter.

        That's definitely true.

    • Ted Cruz (R-Canada)

      I saw what you did there...

  • by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @07:13PM (#50813863)

    "...Yet it still sailed through the Senate, mostly because lawmakers - many of whom can barely operate their own email - know hardly anything about the technology that they’re crafting legislation about."

    In what decade do you think we will find it relevant or important to elect lawmakers who are as competent with technology as they are bullshitting about hope and change?

    In other words, I'm struggling as to who really to blame here, since we voters have been using that "lawmakers are old and ignorant" excuse for too damn long now.

    Perhaps when we stop electing stupid people...

    • But the big issues of the day aren't about Government Surveillance, it is about the Kardashians and whether or not to Nay Nay (however it is spelled).

      The problem isn't the politicians, it is the ignorant people who vote for them.

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Welcome to a big digital Berlin wall. Every user is going to be legally tracked anywhere near the 'internet' by the enthusiastic US brands and their pro gov/mil friendly logging.
  • We've lost (Score:5, Insightful)

    by AndyKron ( 937105 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @07:18PM (#50813879)
    The people have completely lost control over their government. Vote Bernie Sanders!
    • by jez9999 ( 618189 )

      Nice try but no-one's gonna be allowed to disrupt the Hillary coronation.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They'll always win if you don't fight.

  • So can we just setup a Powerline Internet. Then no one will care what is getting sent since it wont be on the 'regular' Internet. Everyone is happy. Guess I will need a 240V DNS server.
  • Congress: Securing your private information by making it public since 2001.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    I wish George Washington were still alive. He would have taken a huge shit in each of these "senators" mouths, then condemned them to the firing line for ushering that "conspiracy from New York" and betraying all his hard work from freeing us from the enslavement of the British and the whole taxation without representation thing. This vote would be a prime example of taxation without representation.

    Why? Because companies like Facebook (who you give your data freely too like morons) lobbied heavy behind clos

  • by MrKaos ( 858439 ) on Tuesday October 27, 2015 @08:33PM (#50814295) Journal

    For those who don't need a third party to read something for them this is a link to the actual bill [congress.gov]. The bill itself is a lot less reading than all of the articles on it.

    I just gisted the bill, it looks like one of these fait accomplis that follow this disturbing pattern we see of aligning the laws of Echelon (5 eyes, sigint or whatever other names it is know by) countries within the bounds of their beleaguered constitutions. Almost a year ago to the day laws with the same intent were passed in Australia under the NSL 2014.

    If I may share my interpretation the bill, the main purpose appears to be to align the legal structures for government agencies to share information. Its up for interpretation and the more eyes reading this the better. I'll need a good read to really get it.

    Of specific interest was that the law is beating a pretty fast drum for the Federal agencies to comply with a 60-180 day time frame for them to develop policy. I'm going to guess that they want to allocate budget spending to implement the policy withing the next 12 months. Of particular concern in the US version the bill allows for Federal agencies to spy on state, local and individuals (sec 2.8).

    If the pattern is followed we can expect the UK and Canada to be next as these legal frameworks have already been passed in Australia and NZ - both political parties supported it there as well.

    Why the governments of our countries are so intent on harassing their population is anyone's guess. What would be really great is if these bills were posted to /. *before* they passed. At least then the outrage could be channeled into constructive action.

    • by moeinvt ( 851793 )

      SEC. 106. Protection from liability.
      (b) Sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators.â"No cause of action shall lie or be maintained in any court against any entity, and such action shall be promptly dismissed, for the sharing or receipt of cyber threat indicators or defensive measures under section 104(c) ifâ" ...

      In other words, whatever privacy arrangements you've established with 3rd parties are hereby null and void.

      Later in the bill they do include verbiage about how the legislation does not

  • What I find interest is the play not just to close off remaining piddly avenues for people to challenge misappropriation of private data it is blocking off even avenues for people to discover anything at all with partially redundant FOIA restrictions.

  • Did you ever wonder why Star Wars depicts a future where so many where helmets all the time? Now you know.
  • Facebook was FOR the CISA bill (Google it)

    So please, stop using Facebook or you're complicit in everything Zuckerberg does.

    Don't forget his famous quote...

    "They trust me â" dumb fucks," -Zuckerberg
    http://gawker.com/5636765/face... [gawker.com]

The amount of time between slipping on the peel and landing on the pavement is precisely 1 bananosecond.

Working...