So much for their "Do No Evil" bull.
Current US politics is like watching a television program were you root for one team or another, you may feel excited when 'your team' wins but your participation will always limited to that of spectating. The analogy breaks down because in our case we also live in the television.
For SOPA and PIPA, everyone found a very convenient, visible, and self-affirming scapegoat in "Hollywood." This was a vast oversimplification of the issue; it caused everyone to lock in on a very prominent tree, while ignoring the forest. Entertainment firms were a big part of the SOPA/PIPA lobby, but they weren't the only backers behind the effort, and they weren't even the biggest. But everyone needed the story to have a villain, and at least in the case of the MPAA, the shoe fit.
Of course, the creation of a villain also left an opening for a hero. Companies like Google quickly realized as much and seized the opportunity. Nevermind that some of these same heroes were busy lobbying for CISPA, and/or other yet-to-be-revealed agendas.
The lesson we should be learning from these fiascos is that corporations push agendas through Washington. Nobody's "evil," and nobody's "good." The world isn't that black and white. Instead, we have interested parties relentlessly pursuing their interests. At times, those interests happen to fall in line with our own. At other times, they fall in diametric opposition.
I submit that the real bogeyman is the influence of lobbying on our lawmaking process, and not X issue, or Y issue, or even Z company. Forest. Trees.
Only because you choose to. You can join groups that align with your beliefs to help influence the legislation process. Don't complain that you are just an spectator when you don't even want to play the game.
Why is any of that surprising? They're a company, not a charity. The entity that's supposed to protect its people is the government. If they aren't doing their job then complain about them. Google is doing exactly what is expected of a company: Making money, growing, and moving their own business forward.
Just lawyer speak?
Also many of those firmly in support of the CISPA bill seems to be the same old usual suspects: Facebook, Microsoft, IBM, Oracle, Symantec, AT&T and Verizon.
Unlike SOPA, where there was plenty of accurate information about why it was bad, I can't figure out what's going on with CISPA. For instance, reading the Wikipedia page it doesn't seem there's any obligation for companies to share information, nor a right to break privacy policies they couldn't earlier.
So it's entirely unclear to me why my privacy is threatened. I'm pro-privacy but I want to know what there is to be worried about.
However, I am rather surprised to Issa on the Aye vote. He was one of the few members that actively worked against SOPA while it was still in committee. His Twitter bio (@darrellissa) says he enjoys "an #OPEN, accessible & uncensored internet."
"Congressman [x] voted NO on stopping cyber terrorism"
My rep pulled support for SOPA at the last possible second, and only after public out cry. I sent him a letter thanking him for actually listening to his constituents, but kindly asked for him to resign. If these people don't understand the technology they're being asked to regulate, they should be replaced by those who do.
In this case, unlike SOPA, there were quite a few people who do understand Internet technology who supported the bill.
(Republicans in roman; Democrats in italic; Independents underlined)