Cispa Has Passed. The 4th Ammendment No Longer Applies To The Internet

[arfink]

It's absolutely true. CISPA has passed. Say goodbye to your 4th Amendment rights, they've been stolen from you.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120426/14505718671/insanity-cispa-just-got-way-worse-then-passed-rushed-vote.shtml

[LaPetiteSoeur]

= 4th amendment

[BG45]

Currently the Obama administration is threatening a veto. Of course they did that with NDAA too, and then signed into law that you can be held without your Constitutional rights.

[she_who_is_not]

It still has to get passed by the Senate and avoid veto by the President.

[PhuturePriest]

The Democrats own the senate, so it will get passed.

[BG45]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1335557783' post='2424060']
The Democrats own the senate, so it will get passed.
[/quote]

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523 That would be a link to Govtrack, it helps citizens track bills as they go through Congress. In the House, CISPA was sponsored by Republican Representative Michael Rogers of Michigan. It has 112 co-sponsors from both parties.

SOPA and PIPA, the last two internet censorship and security bills were also introduced by Republicans. Much like CISPA they recieved wide bipartisan support until the American people freaked out from all the negative publicity that social media generated, something that hasn't happened to as large an extent with CISPA, despite it being even more restrictive.

Also let's break down the votes in the House:
Voted in Favor:
Republican: 206
Democrat: 42

Voted Against:
Republican: 28
Democrat: 140

Not Voting:
Republican: 7
Democrat: 8

My overall point? It doesn't matter which party is dominant in the Senate. Unless the people of the United States are willing to speak up for their rights again like they did before, it will pass and then it will be up to "I won't sign NDAA, really, I'll veto it" Obama to stop it.

[eagle_eye222001]

And this is what ticks me off.

The Republican party is supposed to be about limiting government......but then they do something very Democratic.

Libertarian Party looks more and more appealing.


And while Obama is someone in whom I ideologically oppose on almost everything....I now bank on him to veto this.


The Democrats and Republicans sometimes look very, very similar.

[4588686]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1335560639' post='2424083']
[url="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523"]http://www.govtrack....ills/112/hr3523[/url] That would be a link to Govtrack, it helps citizens track bills as they go through Congress. In the House, CISPA was sponsored by Republican Representative Michael Rogers of Michigan. It has 112 co-sponsors from both parties.

SOPA and PIPA, the last two internet censorship and security bills were also introduced by Republicans. Much like CISPA they recieved wide bipartisan support until the American people freaked out from all the negative publicity that social media generated, something that hasn't happened to as large an extent with CISPA, despite it being even more restrictive.

Also let's break down the votes in the House:
Voted in Favor:
Republican: 206
Democrat: 42

Voted Against:
Republican: 28
Democrat: 140

Not Voting:
Republican: 7
Democrat: 8

My overall point? It doesn't matter which party is dominant in the Senate. Unless the people of the United States are willing to speak up for their rights again like they did before, it will pass and then it will be up to "I won't sign NDAA, really, I'll veto it" Obama to stop it.
[/quote]

I don't understand your conclusion. It seems that while there is some support in both parties the support for the bill comes disproportionally from republicans.

[dUSt]

Good.

[4588686]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1335561939' post='2424100']
And this is what ticks me off.

The Republican party is supposed to be about limiting government..
[/quote]

Hm. Well let's see. Eisenhower didn't limit government. Nixon didn't limit government. Ford didn't Limit government. Reagan didn't limit government. Bush Senior didn't limit government. Bush Jr. didn't limit government.


Can anybody here spot a pattern? Any pattern at all?

[Maximilianus]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1335563378' post='2424111']
Hm. Well let's see. Eisenhower didn't limit government. Nixon didn't limit government. Ford didn't Limit government. Reagan didn't limit government. Bush Senior didn't limit government. Bush Jr. didn't limit government.


Can anybody here spot a pattern? Any pattern at all?
[/quote]
That they get vessels named after them? In this specific case aircraft carriers?

[BG45]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1335563031' post='2424107']
I don't understand your conclusion. It seems that while there is some support in both parties the support for the bill comes disproportionally from republicans.
[/quote]

My conclusion was a thinly veiled pointing out that FP seemed to think that the Democrats would swiftly pass CISPA in the Senate because they hold the majority there. I was pointing out that it has bipartisan support, with most of the people who voted for it in the House being Republicans, opposite the party he claimed would railroad it through.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

please, what is the 4th ammendment ?

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' timestamp='1335561939' post='2424100']
And this is what ticks me off.

The Republican party is supposed to be about limiting government......but then they do something very Democratic.

Libertarian Party looks more and more appealing.


And while Obama is someone in whom I ideologically oppose on almost everything....I now bank on him to veto this.


The Democrats and Republicans sometimes look very, very similar.
[/quote]

I wouldnt say they look similar, as it's pretty obvious which party is the one pushing this through.

I would hazard that if you gathered most of the large disturbing expansions of government made in the past amount of years, most of them would be from the Conservative party.

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1335566828' post='2424123']
please, what is the 4th ammendment ?
[/quote]

here is a canadian with 10 spare seconds and google helping you out. arent you american, tab?

the Fourth Amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Edited April 27, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Thanks jesus_lol , the internet is kinda like the middle of the ocean, it belongs to no one. The australian government is thinking about blocking many sites, and yes there already watching us. I heard china has already blocked many sites already, but not absolutely. little chinese pop ups come up when on a banned site with various warnings that i assume rebukes governmental resposibilty of any consequences for being on the banned site. But i understand there is a thin line between a government helping people make the right choices and a government forcing people to make the right choice. Sometimes i wonder how many true believers there are in saudi arabia when if you don't believe in God your chances of being shot as such are pretty high. XXX and XX is a jailable offence in australia if images or glorification are propegated publicly. Australia will end up blocking these. I rekon they should block X too based on the old testament verse which states we should not look through another persons window,which i basicaly belive is in case your neighbour is having sex. And foul language in public is a dicriminalised offense, not legal but not jailable. You can get a fine, though the police don't uphold this law but possibly will again in the future once the celebrations of victory in ww1 and 2 are over, and lord God may they be over before midnight coz i wan't to go home in the carriage and not walk in the bitter cold at 3 am out of my mind.