Nay I Sanders, Bernie VT
No Vote R Cruz, Ted TX
No Vote R Graham, Lindsey SC
No Vote R Paul, Rand KY
No Vote R Rubio, Marco FL
Note, the Guardian  has Sen. Graham as voting yes.
> Democratic presidential contender Bernie Sanders voted against the bill. None of the Republican presidential candidates (except Lindsey Graham, who voted in favor) were present to cast a vote, including Rand Paul, who has made privacy from surveillance a major plank of his campaign platform.
If it works for guns and the tea-party, then why can't it work for tech?
 Which I doubt. Eventually, you'll have millenial senators. But I am guessing they will still care more about terrorism, chinese hacking, etc, than electronic privacy.
There's a data science hurdle -- can e.g. the Russian mob filter though mass hacked email and facebook accounts to find blackmail material that has reasonably good returns with minimal personal time investment -- before the two become one and the same. If we end the decade before we have public conversations about (modulo details) an email from yourself saying 'send money here or we will forward this email to your employer/spouse', I would be surprised. Until then, people only have privacy because there's no economic incentive to shatter it. There are no rules. Yet.
Why do you think millenials don't care about privacy?
This news is #2 on the Reddit homepage right now, and did you not see Reddit explode (and blackout) over SOPA, either?
Because a viable critical mass of people are willing to be single-issue voters when it comes to guns. And that's the case because gun ownership is deeply ingrained into the culture of many parts of the country.
Neither is true for electronic privacy.
First, 50.1% (or 51% or 50% + 1, more common alternative descriptions) is an inaccurate description of the requirement in a majority/runoff election, "greater than 50%" is correct (since votes are always in whole numbers, 50% + 0.5 would also be a correct minimum threshold.)
Second, many single-winner elections in the US are plurality rather than majority/runoff, for which the threshold is actually "greater than any other candidate" not "greater than 50%".
Third, the system used for elections is subject to change (in many states, through citizen initiative, so the "but the incumbents will never vote for it" objection doesn't apply), so, "it doesn't work in the existing electoral system" isn't really a reason something won't work, just a reason why making it workable also involves advocating for change in the electoral system.
I'm not saying the system we have now is the best one or that it can't be changed. I was just responding to the parent's question of whether a small single issue party could gain traction in the US like the Pirate Party has in other places. Our current system makes that nearly impossible at the national level.
Incidentally, what started the huge European movement against SOPA was, AFAIR unrelated, coincidence - the FBI riding Megaupload. Most popular video streaming sites (which were using Megavideo as a video source) suddenly stopped working and the population of Poland went to the streets to fight against SOPA, realizing that the thing is serious. It's amazing how much activism you can get by depriving someone of the next episode of their favourite show.
Now there are stories of Intel chipsets having all kinds of weirdness in them, and it is not sufficient to sit on the fence here. Things are changing
I interviewed Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform, for one of the columns; whether you agree or disagree with him, he's an able advocate for his issues. Here's what he said:
"One of the most important things the tech industry can do is a rating," Norquist says. "Every politician in this country wants to tell you that he's tech friendly...Pick 10 or 20 issues and give ratings. Then people who say they're tech friendly but they're not--there's a cost to that. You as a tech group don't have to advertise that. The candidate running against that person will promote it. It certainly puts the lie to some people running around who say they're tech friendly and don't have the records to back it up."
I would also be very interested in this. Will do some research.
I agree that we need some sort of "internet voters guide" or rating system for existing legislators. If the two of you (or others) would like to work on it, shoot me an email (in profile). This is the sort of thing Taskforce.is would love to work on I think.
The NRA -- as a lobbying organization -- is a single-issue lobbying organization with an incredibly straightforward mission.
"The tech world" isn't an issue like "gun rights", and can't support an NRA-like organization. A more specific privacy-oriented viewpoint with the kind of simplicity and clarity that the NRA's mission has might -- but it would have only limited correlation to the "tech world" in its support.
The "tech world" just seems like a straw man and easily falls down, for the obvious reasons.
How much tech revenue depends on spying on people and then selling advertisements? I have no idea, but it seems like a lot.
They began to start grading politicians, but it has since been neglected: https://standagainstspying.org/
That said, they are currently our best option. You can support them by donating ( https://supporters.eff.org/donate ) and setting them as your Amazon Smile charity.
Aside from huge voter push, the only thing that could change it would be similar money and power pushing in the opposite direction. Not talk, not lawyers, not faxes: one or more groups paying for and demanding curtailing of mass surveillance with ability to disrupt contracts, bills, or the politician's careers. Right now, only the pro-surveillance people are in that position. So, they're winning and will keep winning until people get how the system really works and make it work for them.
On the NSA/spying...
The (mass surveillance) by the NSA and abuse by law enforcement is just more part and parcel of state suppression of dissent against corporate interests. They're worried that the more people are going to wake up and corporate centers like the US and canada may be among those who also awaken. See this vid with Zbigniew Brzezinski, former United States National Security Advisor.
Brezinski at a press conference
This is an actual opening sentence from some material the EFF published: "Although grassroots activism has dealt it a blow, the Senate Intelligence Committee's terrible bill, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing Act(CISA) keeps shambling along like the zombie it is." It's hard for me to get behind an organization that writes like this.
What I dislike about all the crazy right-wing emails I get is it's all inflated scare mongering and no actual sourcing. The EFF's publications are getting way too similar and it saddens me.
Now, on the flip side, I have yet to see the authors of this bill really put out much material that relates the bill in simpler terms. For that, I am also saddened.
TL;DR: More surveillance under the guise of "Cybersecurity"
You've demonstrated you're completely historically illiterate. It has always been thus, you're just becoming aware of it.
From war is a racket:
"I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil intersts in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested."[p. 10]
"War is a racket. ...It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives." [p. 23]
"The general public shoulders the bill [for war]. This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations." [p. 24]
General Butler is especially trenchant when he looks at post-war casualties. He writes with great emotion about the thousands of tramautized soldiers, many of who lose their minds and are penned like animals until they die, and he notes that in his time, returning veterans are three times more likely to die prematurely than those who stayed home.
US distribution of wealth
The Centre for Investigative Journalism
Some history on US imperialism by us corporations.
You don't seem to be historically literate at all. I suggest chomsky. And the book by the trilateral commission.
Crisis of democracy - chomsky
Europe also wants to regulate internet traffic, at the same time an internet law is passed and both us and europe want a broader commerce union with TIPP.
Are all these tools implemented to eventually censor people who will disagree with all that is coming with this new union? something like china does with everything that is against the party? what are they trying to do to our society with these baby steps?
The gap between US lawmakers and the EU is only widening when it comes to Privacy matters. This vote only lends more credence to the EU's decision earlier this month to scrap Safe Harbor .
Yes. The House and Senate must actually pass the same bill, not merely similar bills.
D Bennet, Michael CO
D Blumenthal, Richard CT
D Boxer, Barbara CA
D Cantwell, Maria WA
D Carper, Thomas DE
D Casey, Bob PA
D Donnelly, Joe IN
D Durbin, Richard IL
D Feinstein, Dianne CA
D Gillibrand, Kirsten NY
D Heinrich, Martin NM
D Heitkamp, Heidi ND
D Hirono, Mazie HI
D Kaine, Timothy VA
D Klobuchar, Amy MN
D Manchin, Joe WV
D McCaskill, Claire MO
D Mikulski, Barbara MD
D Murphy, Christopher CT
D Murray, Patty WA
D Nelson, Bill FL
D Peters, Gary MI
D Reed, John RI
D Reid, Harry NV
D Schatz, Brian HI
D Schumer, Chuck NY
D Shaheen, Jeanne NH
D Stabenow, Debbie MI
D Warner, Mark VA
D Whitehouse, Sheldon RI
I King, Angus ME
R Alexander, Lamar TN
R Ayotte, Kelly NH
R Barrasso, John WY
R Blunt, Roy MO
R Boozman, John AR
R Burr, Richard NC
R Capito, Shelley WV
R Cassidy, Bill LA
R Coats, Daniel IN
R Cochran, Thad MS
R Collins, Susan ME
R Corker, Bob TN
R Cornyn, John TX
R Cotton, Tom AR
R Enzi, Michael WY
R Ernst, Joni IA
R Fischer, Deb NE
R Flake, Jeff AZ
R Gardner, Cory CO
R Grassley, Chuck IA
R Hatch, Orrin UT
R Hoeven, John ND
R Inhofe, Jim OK
R Isakson, John GA
R Johnson, Ron WI
R Kirk, Mark IL
R Lankford, James OK
R McCain, John AZ
R McConnell, Mitch KY
R Moran, Jerry KS
R Murkowski, Lisa AK
R Perdue, David GA
R Portman, Rob OH
R Roberts, Pat KS
R Rounds, Mike SD
R Sasse, Benjamin NE
R Scott, Tim SC
R Sessions, Jeff AL
R Shelby, Richard AL
R Thune, John SD
R Tillis, Thom NC
R Toomey, Pat PA
R Wicker, Roger MS
because when they get along we lose.
Shame them into admitting it's not only a useless, but harmful law, and force them to repeal it.