Interestingly, since Obama is "democrat" he can easily push right-wing changes and get away with it. His supporters then go "he is a good guy, but evil republicans forced him to". If any republican would try it, there would be strong outcry.
Have you guys read Lieberman-Collins? It's linked from the story. You should, if this EO is truly an indicator of Obama's retreat on civil liberties, easily be able to point out clauses from the bill that make that point.
I've read it. I don't think it'll be as easy as these comments make it sound.
Have you read linked Political Comapass article? It provides enough other indicators. First sentence is priceless though: This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state masquerading as a two-party state.
I do not understand what that "Political Compass" article has to do with computer security legislation in general, let alone with the Lieberman-Collins bill in particular. That doesn't mean they have nothing to do with each other, but you probably need to explain the connection a little bit more.
1) Some of the questions simply don't make sense, i.e. "Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries." The what resources?
2) It completely conflates personal beliefs with those I would want to see forced upon society at large.
3) Some of the questions have totally ambiguous interpretations in terms of the two given axes. If I agree with "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", does that make me more or less authoritarian? What about "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all"?
Also, the points assigned to famous political figures are totally arbitrary. Neither Hitler nor Hu Jintao have taken this quiz, so the author is simply making up answers for them.
Re: 1, the "plant genetic resources", I believe that's in respect to Monsanto's tendency to patent particular strains of seeds ("Round-up Ready" means that the pesticides won't kill the plants), and then leverage the legal system (or money) to ensure that their seeds become the only seeds used in the area.
Many agrarian cultures have a history of seed sharing and seed saving, which Monsanto seed (and lawyers) prevents. Over time, the poor nation of Elbonia's farmers cannot plant anything _but_ Monsanto seeds (as they have no uncontaminated seed banks, and their Monsanto crops are sterile). At that point, the country is entirely dependent on a multinational corporation in order to grow food. They have no seeds (genetic resources for plants) with which to plant new crops, to breed with other plants to make disease or drought-resistant hybrids, and in general a collection of diverse breeds of that particular plant are in time replaced with a single breed.
Some would argue that this sort of behavior is unethical and abhorrent. There are frequent stories from farmers of being bullied by Monsanto, which makes this an even easier opinion to hold.
Others point out that without GMO seeds, it would be very hard for some of these countries to plant __enough__ crops to feed themselves, regardless of diversity. From a standpoint of feeding a planet, that argument seems to carry some weight as well. It's a complex issue.
As for 1), it is indeed terribly worded, my guess they refer to companies patenting DNA sequences and then requiring a payment for the exported food,nbut obviously there are multiple interpretations. May be it's worder this way on purpose. :)