
CISPA is back with a new name - fur0n
http://www.cispaisback.org/?t=dXNlcmlkPTUyMjM4MjE3LGVtYWlsaWQ9ODgzNw==
======
AlyssaRowan
Just so you know, they're pulling the same kind of shit over here in the UK:
"emergency powers" being pushed through with barely a debate by an unelected
PM, his lapdog deputy in the Lib Dems, and a weak opposition, with tripartisan
support thanks to the party whips. No one even really knows or understands
what they're agreeing to, the "temporary" shouldn't fool anyone as it can be
extended (and it would be an 'emergency' not to, wouldn't it?) - and the real
kicker is that the "emergency" is the EU courts have ruled the UK's existing
mass data retention laws contravene our human rights, so the UK Government's
response is to… pass _another_ mass data retention law as a matter of urgency,
explicitly before ISPs start deleting (unlawfully collected) data.

 _What the fuck._ Sometimes politicians just disgust me. We could use some
help over here too - Pirate Party UK, maybe, or the Green Party?

~~~
octagonal
Vote for pro-EU parties. Or really any party that isn't UKIP.

This would not have happened if the UK had listened to the ECHR or the ECJ.

~~~
nly
> Vote for pro-EU parties

This basically pans down to the Greens or the Lib Dems. The former have just
_one_ voice, Caroline[0], in the House of Commons. The latter is led by the
guy standing alongside the Prime Minister as this "emergency legislation" was
announced, and offered his vocal support. In any case, the Lib Dems will also
likely be ground in to dust in the coming general election: currently polling
at <10%[1], down from about 25-30% prior to the last[2]. So, even if they were
successful at moderating Government policy with respect to social liberties,
they soon won't matter.

[0]
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQYutZb2iGk](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQYutZb2iGk)

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_Un...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#2014)

[2]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7511352/poll-t...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7511352/poll-
tracker.html)

------
Andrenid
This is the problem. It's less effort for them to keep bringing it back under
different names/guises, than it is for the general public to continue fighting
it, continue raising enough attention against it, etc.

People are lazy. You can rile them up to get critical mass for an action every
now and then, but you can't sustain it forever.

~~~
higherpurpose
This wouldn't be as big of a problem as it is for both the population who has
to stay extremely vigilant (more than they want to) just so they don't pass
something quickly and in secret/when no one pays attention (like at holidays),
and also the Supreme Court wouldn't be barraged with bad laws from Congress
(and these laws don't even reach them for decades sometimes), if US was using
a Constitutional Court.

I think having a Constitutional Court that verifies every single bill that
passes through Congress and administration, and has final say on whether a
bill is going to become law or not, would be a decent solution for an out of
control Congress and administration that don't even care if their laws are
Constitutional or not anymore.

This is not to "replace" the Supreme Court, or any other Court. this is in
_addition_ to them. A Constitutional Court could filter out a lot of the bad
bills, before they ever had to reach the Supreme Court for their
unconstitutionality. With a Constitutional Court something like the Patriot
Act or FAA might've never passed, and we wouldn't have to endure it for 20
years before it even _reaches_ the Supreme Court, to decide its
constitutionality.

But what happens if a Constitutional Court allows a "bad bill" to pass anyway,
you ask? Well, nothing different than right now. It goes out there, and
eventually someone sues over it, and it goes through the same process up to
the Supreme Court, if it's that bad. The point of the Constitutional Court
wouldn't be to "set a precedent" but to _filter out_ at least 90 percent of
bad/unconstitutional bills coming out from Congress. Other than that,
everything else will work as normal.

The system is already used in many European countries, and I think it would
work well for US, too. Without it a lot of EU countries would probably have a
lot worse justice system, since they don't even have the precedent thing,
which means that if a lot more bad bills were allowed to go through, they
would have a lot more judges split on the decisions, and more unconstitutional
laws would be allowed to continue for more years. But the Constitutional Court
filters out most of those, so the judges can only be split on a few of the bad
ones.

~~~
cowbell
Don't you think that would end up like the patent office? Rubber stamps for
everyone...

I think a far more effective solution would be to require all laws be version
controlled on a publicly available site. Something like github for Congress.
No more need to reference Act 737 Paragraph 3 section 2 part H. It's just a
diff at that point. It would make it very clear who is proposing changes to
what. Combine passage with a code review process so that everyone can see who
voted for/against/abstain and why for everything, ever.

The NSA can view the totality of everything we do. Why are we still unable to
view the totality of what Congress is up to? 300,000,000 Americans private
lives are under total surveillance, while we can't even monitor the supposedly
public activity of a measly 600 people.

~~~
taway98765
I fully agree with your way of thinking; this is exactly the approach to these
matters I expected to find here on HN.

------
switch007
The UK is also passing "emergency" data retention legislation just before
Parliament closes for summer and before the data is deleted.
[http://dataretentionandinvestigatorypowersbill.uk](http://dataretentionandinvestigatorypowersbill.uk)

~~~
fredley
I just checked my MP on Twitter. So far _one person_ has tweeted to her about
it. It makes me think the levels of apathy are just too high here for anybody
to make a difference.

~~~
switch007
Well, I contacted my MP. I'm not holding my breath with this voting record:

* Voted very strongly against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

* Voted very strongly for increasing the rate of VAT

* Voted very strongly against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices

* Voted very strongly for reducing central government funding of local government

* Voted a mixture of for and against a wholly elected House of Lords

------
uptown
The infographic mentions that "Corporate lobbyists have spent $605 million to
get this legislation passed".

These pages show which corporations are supporting this (links towards the
bottom):

[http://maplight.org/us-
congress/bill/113-hr-624/1202831/tota...](http://maplight.org/us-
congress/bill/113-hr-624/1202831/total-contributions)

[http://maplight.org/us-
congress/bill/113-hr-624/1202831/tota...](http://maplight.org/us-
congress/bill/113-hr-624/1202831/total-contributions)

------
snarfy
Hey California, why is Feinstein still in office?

SOPA, PIPA, CISPA, CISPA v2, now CISA.

~~~
cheepin
because voting her out would likely require voting in a republican, which
doesn't seem overly likely against an incumbent.

~~~
snarfy
This makes sense, depressing, apathy-inducing sense.

------
KhalPanda
The infographic around half way down the page is really well put together.

------
zactral
The problem is that for people living outside the US, we already have the
right side of the infographic. All our data is vacuumed in and used with
impunity and nobody gives a damn whether we want it or not. Most of the
discussion so far has been about the circumstances and illegality of spying
after US citizens. Meanwhile, the rest of the world is left watching like
second or third class human beings who can't have _any_ realistic expectations
with regard to having privacy of their data used by US companies (which
dominate the market due to several reasons)

------
tool
"Places online where you can expect privacy: Facebook"

I'd rather be spied upon by NSA any day over Facebook. Atleast then I know how
my information is being used. But oh right, NSA doesn't have a website where
you can show off your socio economic status.

~~~
PhasmaFelis
Facebook's never imprisoned or tortured anyone that I'm aware of. Maybe
that'll be in a future rollout.

~~~
Ygg2
Yup, just enabled those that do. Good for them. Keeping their hands clean.

