hazek (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 26, 2012, 11:15:31 PM |
|
Those mother fuckers. I can't express how angry it makes me that some people out there think they own me. The House on Thursday approved cybersecurity legislation that privacy groups cautioned was a threat to civil liberties.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), passed on a vote of 248 to 168. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/house-passes-cispa/
|
My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)
If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
evoorhees
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
|
|
April 26, 2012, 11:29:34 PM |
|
Onward we march into tyranny... thank god for Bitcoin
|
|
|
|
Littleshop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 26, 2012, 11:47:23 PM |
|
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
April 26, 2012, 11:49:07 PM |
|
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Guys, guys, don't worry about it, no need for a big campaign about this one, I've got it under control. <<TROLLFACE.JPG>>
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
|
|
|
hazek (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 27, 2012, 12:15:06 AM |
|
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do.
|
My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)
If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
April 27, 2012, 12:21:23 AM |
|
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
|
|
|
|
Littleshop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 27, 2012, 12:21:59 AM |
|
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do. You may not like Obama but that is the opposite of what he said. " OMB said that the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace." "
|
|
|
|
hazek (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1078
Merit: 1002
|
|
April 27, 2012, 12:26:11 AM |
|
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do. You may not like Obama but that is the opposite of what he said. " OMB said that the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace." " You should spend less time listening to the PR and more time reading the actual language of the amendments. I'm not going to waste even a second more on this topic, so if you want to know the reality of this matter feel free to do your own research.
|
My personality type: INTJ - please forgive my weaknesses (Not naturally in tune with others feelings; may be insensitive at times, tend to respond to conflict with logic and reason, tend to believe I'm always right)
If however you enjoyed my post: 15j781DjuJeVsZgYbDVt2NZsGrWKRWFHpp
|
|
|
Littleshop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 27, 2012, 12:32:00 AM |
|
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do. You may not like Obama but that is the opposite of what he said. " OMB said that the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace." " You should spend less time listening to the PR and more time reading the actual language of the amendments. I'm not going to waste even a second more on this topic, so if you want to know the reality of this matter feel free to do your own research. You may know more about this then me. I didn't think the president proposed amendments to bills but I guess I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
Herodes
|
|
April 27, 2012, 12:38:29 AM |
|
The bill immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for voluntarily disclosing customer information thought to be a security threat. Wow. So if someone somehow thinks you or some of the systems or persons using the computer systems registered on your name is thought to be a security threat, then they could share any information about you with the govt. or any other entity? We have several cases from real life showing that not even judges and lawyers always manages to use common sense when handling persons percieved to be a 'security threat', and now we're going to have people who have no business taking legal decisions deciding when it's right to share information and not ? A free man should be able to exercise his freedom be it offline or online, that's my stand. So basically now, if anyone wants your information, they could just call an ISP and say in a very serious voice to a stressed out sysadmin; Hi I'm Bob Hansen, calling from the local FBI office, we believe to have very serious security threats coming from user with ip 345.233.323.233 from you system. We need the Name, Street Address and Billing contact information NOW! When there's no court order needs, the social engineering attempts to get out personal information and the misuse from government and private companies are only going to increase. Also Imagine you or some of your friends or a remote hacker does some nefarious stuff with your current ISP account, and then later on you've straightened up your ways or gotten rid of the the malware, and get's rejected by the current ISP, and you try another ISP and you again get rejected for 'security reasons'. (ISPs sharing information about your activities and blacklisting you). Personally I don't think a customers private information should be shared with anyone unless there's a court order allowing it.
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
April 27, 2012, 12:51:23 AM |
|
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that?
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
|
|
|
Littleshop
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1003
|
|
April 27, 2012, 01:33:51 AM |
|
From wiki: On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA. House Voting Counts
Full list can be seen at the House.gov site. [21] Ayes Votes
Republican: 206 Democrat: 42 Noes Votes
Republican: 28 Democrat: 140 NV Votes
Republican: 7 Democrat: 8 Supporters
CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.
|
|
|
|
evoorhees
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1008
Merit: 1021
Democracy is the original 51% attack
|
|
April 27, 2012, 01:59:13 AM |
|
When there's no court order needs, the social engineering attempts to get out personal information and the misuse from government and private companies are only going to increase.
Excellent point
|
|
|
|
coinuser4000
Member
Offline
Activity: 128
Merit: 10
|
|
April 27, 2012, 02:25:25 AM |
|
The bill immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for voluntarily disclosing customer information thought to be a security threat. When there's no court order needs, the social engineering attempts to get out personal information and the misuse from government and private companies are only going to increase. I hardly thought it could get much worse but as usual, I stand unfortunately corrected. This is yet one step closer to a Police State from NSL's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_LetterWhere I live, regular use of Tor and strong encryption would be more than enough to qualify as "suspicious activity" (if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to hide.....). If you don't see me post for a while you'll know I've been tracked down and sent to jail for conspicuously awesome internet hygiene.
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
April 27, 2012, 02:27:05 AM |
|
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that? I don't understand what you mean... a criminal would be one who breaks a law that defines one as a criminal, right? From wiki: On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA. House Voting Counts
Full list can be seen at the House.gov site. [21] Ayes Votes
Republican: 206 Democrat: 42 Noes Votes
Republican: 28 Democrat: 140 NV Votes
Republican: 7 Democrat: 8 Supporters
CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.
Republicans, I am disappoint.
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
April 27, 2012, 03:53:57 AM |
|
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that? I don't understand what you mean... a criminal would be one who breaks a law that defines one as a criminal, right? Well all they are going to be doing is catching criminals, right? But since they get to pick how to do that and who is a criminal and they even get to change it as they go "catching criminals" pretty much means doing whatever the hell they want.
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
April 27, 2012, 05:55:42 AM |
|
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that? I don't understand what you mean... a criminal would be one who breaks a law that defines one as a criminal, right? Well all they are going to be doing is catching criminals, right? But since they get to pick how to do that and who is a criminal and they even get to change it as they go "catching criminals" pretty much means doing whatever the hell they want. Exactly. That's why I said this is going too far...
|
|
|
|
check_status
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
Web Dev, Db Admin, Computer Technician
|
|
April 27, 2012, 07:22:15 AM |
|
Those mother fuckers. This +11
|
For Bitcoin to be a true global currency the value of BTC needs always to rise. If BTC became the global currency & money supply = 100 Trillion then ⊅1.00 BTC = $4,761,904.76. P2Pool Server List | How To's and Guides Mega List | 1 EndfedSryGUZK9sPrdvxHntYzv2EBexGA
|
|
|
Dutch Merganser
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
April 27, 2012, 07:52:44 AM |
|
People seem to have quickly forgotten the bunch of worthless pissants with minds crippled by superstition, parochialism, and preposterous ideologies they put in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010. The House has been nearly completely dysfunctional since. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_CaucusIt was said in the 1970s that the attention span of the American electorate was approximately equal to the length of a beer commercial. These days that attention span is comparable to that of a parakeet, as seems to be the average IQ. This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
|
"Science flies you to the Moon, religion flies you into buildings." - Victor Stenger
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Elder (ca. 54 BCE - ca. 39 CE) Roman rhetorician
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
April 27, 2012, 08:02:01 AM |
|
THIS IS A HUGE DEAL. BE OUTRAGED, go research it for yourself.
|
|
|
|
benjamindees
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
|
|
April 27, 2012, 11:48:29 PM |
|
This isn't a huge deal. They've already been doing all of this stuff in meatspace for a long time now, tracking innocent people and basically bungling law enforcement in general. And they've been doing most of it on the internet as well. It's just not completely out in the open.
Most people will not care about this, just as most people didn't care about NDAA or warrantless wiretapping or the literal dozens of other unconstitutional oppressive tactics used by the US government against the American people for decades now.
Most people don't care that the Treasury has used regressive taxation and twisted legal interpretation of the Constitution in order to literally sell the country to foreigners and to literally sell future generations into debt-serfdom.
Most people don't care that incompetent, unconstitutional agencies like the EPA and SEC are used as vehicles of cronyism, in order to extra-judicially punish industries and businesses that fail to curry favor with the current administration and to reward those that are politically connected and make generous campaign donations.
Most people don't care that the Justice Department shipped guns into Mexico and helped to murder US citizens in order to influence public opinion against the second amendment, or that they tried to orchestrate a race war and instigated racial violence in the Martin case in order to disparage self-defense and community policing.
The majority will not care when they start revoking passports and instating capital controls. And the majority will not care about whatever comes next, whether "voluntary" work camps or more false-flag terror attacks and a military draft or just ramped-up jack-booted police state, engineered economic stagnation and financial repression.
It's far too late in the game to be outraged over formalities like these. Just get your shit together, learn to stand up for your rights and ignore nonsense like this because it's irrelevant anyways.
|
Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
April 28, 2012, 01:55:54 AM |
|
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that? I don't understand what you mean... a criminal would be one who breaks a law that defines one as a criminal, right? Well all they are going to be doing is catching criminals, right? But since they get to pick how to do that and who is a criminal and they even get to change it as they go "catching criminals" pretty much means doing whatever the hell they want. Exactly. That's why I said this is going too far... Oh ok. I don't want them catching criminals since that would involve, well.. lets leave it at "catching people I know".
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
|
|
|
gamer4156
|
|
April 28, 2012, 03:21:35 AM |
|
I laughed at the part where it said the government was not the enemy.
|
|
|
|
SgtSpike
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1005
|
|
April 28, 2012, 04:50:59 AM |
|
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that? I don't understand what you mean... a criminal would be one who breaks a law that defines one as a criminal, right? Well all they are going to be doing is catching criminals, right? But since they get to pick how to do that and who is a criminal and they even get to change it as they go "catching criminals" pretty much means doing whatever the hell they want. Exactly. That's why I said this is going too far... Oh ok. I don't want them catching criminals since that would involve, well.. lets leave it at "catching people I know". Haha
|
|
|
|
|
bb113
|
|
April 28, 2012, 01:34:11 PM |
|
Why do you put stock in standardized test scores?
|
|
|
|
Ente Erstickenfickër
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
|
|
April 28, 2012, 04:31:07 PM |
|
Why do you put stock in standardized test scores? Do you have any evidence that one shouldn't? I'm not here to do your homework for you, but a few things that come to mind are proven positive correlation with lifetime earning ability and state measures of wealth and income, negative correlation with prison population percentages by state, and a recent history of improvement in the SAT tests themselves. The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities. Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
|
|
|
|
BinaryMage
|
|
April 29, 2012, 06:38:58 AM |
|
Do you have any evidence that one shouldn't? I'm not here to do your homework for you, but a few things that come to mind are proven positive correlation with lifetime earning ability and state measures of wealth and income, negative correlation with prison population percentages by state, and a recent history of improvement in the SAT tests themselves.
The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.
Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
You're on an incorrect thread of causality. Success on the SATs has virtually nothing to do with intelligence; it's about half information regurgitation and half test-taking skills. Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such. The fact that people who do well on their SATs are more likely to succeed is irrelevant; simply doing well on the SAT has a significant effect on college admissions, scholarships, and the like - enough to skew percentages that the ETS will no doubt use to persuade people of the validity of its test. I'm not disagreeing with the claim that education in the States is getting worse - nor am I agreeing with it - but in any case SAT scores are no valid proof of anything except the willingness of the public to accept far too much at face value.
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
|
|
April 29, 2012, 07:43:56 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
TECSHARE
In memoriam
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3318
Merit: 1958
First Exclusion Ever
|
|
May 05, 2012, 12:23:32 PM |
|
On a forum completely dedicated to a service which depends on a P2P networking method of transmission you would think a few more fucks would be given about this legislation. I guess you would be wrong.
|
|
|
|
faidsaid
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 43
Merit: 0
|
|
May 06, 2012, 05:16:36 AM |
|
Do you have any evidence that one shouldn't? I'm not here to do your homework for you, but a few things that come to mind are proven positive correlation with lifetime earning ability and state measures of wealth and income, negative correlation with prison population percentages by state, and a recent history of improvement in the SAT tests themselves.
The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.
Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
You're on an incorrect thread of causality. Success on the SATs has virtually nothing to do with intelligence; it's about half information regurgitation and half test-taking skills. Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such. The fact that people who do well on their SATs are more likely to succeed is irrelevant; simply doing well on the SAT has a significant effect on college admissions, scholarships, and the like - enough to skew percentages that the ETS will no doubt use to persuade people of the validity of its test. I'm not disagreeing with the claim that education in the States is getting worse - nor am I agreeing with it - but in any case SAT scores are no valid proof of anything except the willingness of the public to accept far too much at face value. Correlation is not causality, yet correlation is present, are you a betting man? For your sake I hope not. You're going the long way around the block to put something there that does not need to be, it simply is what it is. Your claim "Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such" if true, supports the notion that dumbing down is simply broadly based much more readily than that this "public" you say exists has any basis for the supposed belief. After 40 years of a headlong escape into superstition and parochialism by large portions of the U.S. populace one would expect that to be the case. BTW, what's the highest grade/level of education that you have successfully completed?
|
|
|
|
drakahn
|
|
May 06, 2012, 06:09:27 AM |
|
On a forum completely dedicated to a service which depends on a P2P networking method of transmission you would think a few more fucks would be given about this legislation. I guess you would be wrong.
One of the only political things that got me off my arse was the internet filter, it was not an easy fight to change the sheeples minds away from what the tv said (The tv said that only paedophiles don't like internet filters) but we got it done (for now) Now i just need to destroy government currency and we will be on the right path
|
14ga8dJ6NGpiwQkNTXg7KzwozasfaXNfEU
|
|
|
BinaryMage
|
|
May 06, 2012, 06:51:29 AM |
|
Correlation is not causality, yet correlation is present, are you a betting man? For your sake I hope not. No, I am not a gambler. I suspect I would get kicked out of Vegas very quickly, and I've never had any inclination to test that theory. You're going the long way around the block to put something there that does not need to be, it simply is what it is. Your claim "Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such" if true, supports the notion that dumbing down is simply broadly based much more readily than that this "public" you say exists has any basis for the supposed belief. After 40 years of a headlong escape into superstition and parochialism by large portions of the U.S. populace one would expect that to be the case.
I'm not saying the "public" has any basis for the belief, I'm saying that they have that belief. Whether the belief is valid or not is effectively irrelevant, but if you wish to debate it, I won't disappoint you. In my humble opinion the majority, though not all, of standardized tests are not an effective measure of future success because they measure abilities not often required in the workplace (such as handwriting a 25-minute timed essay) and fail to measure the skills most integral to success in the workplace (e.g. collaboration and ingenuity). [...] the notion that dumbing down is simply broadly based [...] I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here. Can you clarify? BTW, what's the highest grade/level of education that you have successfully completed? I do not understand how insulting my intelligence helps your argument, please enlighten me.
|
|
|
|
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
|
|
May 06, 2012, 09:40:20 AM |
|
BTW, what's the highest grade/level of education that you have successfully completed? I do not understand how insulting my intelligence helps your argument, please enlighten me. He's probably one of those unemployed guys that only went to college because his daddy wanted him to and thinks everybody should be like him.
|
|
|
|
Bitware
|
|
May 06, 2012, 10:37:54 AM |
|
On a forum completely dedicated to a service which depends on a P2P networking method of transmission you would think a few more fucks would be given about this legislation. I guess you would be wrong.
+ infinity
|
|
|
|
|