
Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement" - dylangs1030
http://cms.fightforthefuture.org/mike-rogers/
======
tptacek
Mike Rogers is making it very hard to defend CISPA by saying things like this,
but I'll point out that what Mike Rogers thinks about CISPA opponents is
probably the least important thing to know about the bill.

Something you _might_ want to know is that "Fight For The Future" feels
comfortable riling you up without telling you the full story about the bill.
CISPA, according to FFTF, "lets the government spy on you without a warrant".
In actual fact, CISPA is an _opt-in_ measure that _allows_ a company like
Yahoo to share information about ongoing attacks --- which find a specific
definition in the bill, more specific than any other cyber bill proposed ---
with security providers and with law enforcement.

It's been my experience that most people who oppose CISPA are not familiar
with what the bill actually says, even though CISPA is a very short bill.
There are principled opponents of CISPA with very strong arguments, but sites
like FFTF are unprincipled in their opposition to the bill.

~~~
homosaur
What you say is misleading. You say "allow them to share," when you should say
"immunity from prosecution related to damages resulting from them sharing."

Basically, it's open season on surveillance because now companies aren't
liable if requests are followed in "good faith," which essentially means "we
did whatever the government wanted."

~~~
tptacek
I'm not sure how anything you said contradicts anything I said. Service
providers are, by the way, not immunized from civil suits if they share
information not incident to an actual attack.

~~~
homosaur
Anything can be roped into "actual attack." Remember the actual language of
the bill, since you read it: "theft of intellectual property." What the hell
does that mean?

Of course there is no oversight aside from the people who are making requests,
so the idea that a company would actually be penalized for releasing info
"unreleated to cyberthreats" is laughable at best.

~~~
tptacek
Like I said upthread, CISPA goes further in trying to actually define what a
"cyberattack" is than any other bill I've read. How would you modify the
definitions in the bill?

~~~
homosaur
You and I have discussed DHS related things before, and I think we simply have
differing views on this entire thing. I simply don't want any more power going
to the most demonstrably incompetent branch of government in the history of
the US (including, of course, everything historically that came out of the
1947 act that this is a rider to).

I do agree with you that the definitions of cybercrime and attacks in CISPA
would be a start for the framework for coherent legislation. I just don't
think that DHS should continue to be added onto piecemeal until they control
100% of all law enforcement activities as well, since let's face it, that's
the eventual goal.

------
cs702
As Senator Mark Hanna said in 1895 (118 years ago!): "There are two things
that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can't remember what
the second one is."[1] If you want to understand why Representative Mike
Rogers is mocking CISPA opponents as "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement,"
just ask, who finances his political campaigns?

I hate to be cynical, but calling your Representative may not be enough.
Judging by Hanna's 118-year-old quote, it's never been enough. In the long run
the solution might be campaign finance reform, but in the short run we may
also want organizations like the EFF to raise money so they can _finance
political campaigns aligned with their values, gaining more influence over the
political process._

\--

[1] [http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/405598-there-are-two-
things-...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/405598-there-are-two-things-that-
are-important-in-politics-the)

~~~
disposition2
[http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=201...](http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2012&cid=N00009668&type=I)

~~~
rwmj
What's scary is how _cheap_ it is to buy politicians.

~~~
straight_talk
US politicians are not cheap at all, those sums are just the tip of the
iceberg ...

------
sinak
Debate on CISPA is happening on the floor right now, you can watch online
here: <http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN/>

But most importantly, take 2 minutes and call your House Rep and tell them
what you think about CISPA: <https://eff.org/r.5bPw>

~~~
CoughlinJ
I called my reps last week, but it also might not be a bad idea to drop Rogers
a line on twitter, explaining who and what you are, and telling him that you
oppose the bill.

I found it quite cathartic.

~~~
dylangs1030
I hope you didn't forget to mention that you're neither 14 nor residing in a
basement.

------
hkmurakami
I find the choice of "14 year olds" quite fascinating, because 14 year olds
don't have voting rights. If 14 is replaced with 18, then suddenly the phrase
takes a completely different tone, since then it'd be disenfranchising a block
of the population that has legitimate voting rights.

I feel that 14 was chosen deliberately to give teh additional implication that
CISPA opponents "don't have the right to oppose it" or something along those
lines.

~~~
fyi80
It's also bizarrely tone-deaf metaphor-mixing.

the pejorative "basement" refers to an adult who doesn't have their own
residence, and so lives in extra space in (but near the edge of) their
parent's home, while pretending it is a separate residence. It doesn't make
any sense to call a 14-year old a "basement"-dweller, they would have a
regular bedroom.

------
ryanmolden
Anytime someone's argument is the moral equivalent of 'my opponents are
doodie-heads' I pretty much start ignoring them. It is a shame that an elected
official, ostensibly 'leading' our country, is making such idiotic arguments
and isn't more embarrassed about doing so.

~~~
ryandvm
The problem with ignoring politicians is that it just encourages them...

~~~
ryanmolden
Yes, when I said ignore I meant from an information gathering perspective. If
I care about an issue enough I will actively donate to organizations
representing my interests. It is really all I can do when <insert idiot
politician> is from an area I have no vote in.

------
zeruch
And I call Mike Rogers a 54(?) year old political hack without a actual
argumentative leg to stand on. This would be just another trite case of
legislators wearing their donation sources on their sleeve, but the truth is
that these kinds of people are dangerous to not only the tech industry in
general, but really more foundational elements (I hate to sound like a CATO-
monkey, because that gets irksome, but guys like Rogers and Feinstein really
do trammel on "freedoms" pretty rampantly).

I've read through CISPA. It's got some very elegant wording, but its
contemptible all the way around in what its going after.

------
PeterisP
In some aspect he is exactly right - our CISPA fight needs support not only
from tweeters, but from people like founders of Twitter who can speak in the
language of money and campaign funds.

The tech industry is so much bigger and more important to USA economy than the
content industry that allowing them to dominate the lobbying discussion is
just a 'tail wagging the dog' situation.

~~~
Jach
CISPA has nothing to do with the content industry. You'll also find that the
tech industry has plenty of lobbyists, and a few of them are supporting CISPA.
(Ed: Ah, there's tptacek on this thread.)

------
nijiko
It's being voted on today and tomorrow, make these days count.

------
lutusp
> Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their
> Basement"

Yes -- a bunch of people who are four years away from being able to vote
Rogers out of office.

------
johnbellone
Don't spend the energy debating this now. Wait until after you call your
representatives and then comment.

