No joke- Obama threatened a veto on privacy concerns and the senate punted on it- and yet:
The government is dead serious about turning every sizable company on the internet into a part of a gross-national cybersecurity infrastrucutre maintainer, and they are not going to quit until the internet has been adequately leashed by the legislative hand.
If corporations are people, this is definitely a violation of the 3rd amendment. Look it up, you probably haven't heard of it in the past couple hundred years or so.
> The government is dead serious about turning every sizable company on the internet into a part of a gross-national cybersecurity infrastrucutre maintainer,
Which government? The head of the executive branch that threatened to veto such a thing over privacy concerns, or the Senate that wouldn't even give the bill the time of day (again, due to privacy concerns).
The government is a big damned huge complicated thing. Statements like "The government wants to do X" are silly simply due to the scale, even more so when two distinct pieces of "the government" are blocking the action you're asserting as their "dead serious" goal.
Explain the third amendment bit: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."
Who exactly is suggesting we house soldiers in peoples' houses?
Well, if what you do virtually on line can be considered on a par with what you do physically, so inciting terrorism on facebook for example, there has to be some sort of parallel with virtual soldiers, which we could refer to as spy service spybots, spying on out computers in our homes, or on our mobile devices.
Im not sure the government can on one had work that logic to prosecute citizens, while not applying the same logic to its own activities.
So, things have moved on and so "quartering soldiers" applied to today's society should apply with the same logic used elsewhere. Especially if elsewhere is the law.
Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.
> Well, if what you do virtually on line can be considered on a par with what you do physically
But it isn't. That's why e.g. the CFAA is separate from plain old criminal trespass.
> Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.
Sure words evolve, but some words are more amenable to evolution than others. "Quartering soldiers" is a very specific term, referencing a very specific grievance that the colonists had with the British. It has nothing to do with spying--the grievance was about being forced to "quarter" (literally, to furnish with lodging) soldiers and bear the expense of doing so.
> Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.
This is true, but there is some matter of consensus for language shift. Furthermore, if the meaning of words shift, laws become invalid rather than simply applying themselves overbroadly. A law containing the word A meaning B does not suddenly include C, D, and E because society moves on.
> If corporations are people, this is definitely a violation of the 3rd amendment.
How so? I don't see anything in either the actual CISPA nor the imaginary CISPAs that much of the internet thinks exist that would raise a 3rd Amendment issue.
We have always been at war with <enemy>. I kid, but I honestly wasn't aware of that, was the constitution written to exclude wartime or did somebody have to amend it because some condition was untenable during wartime?
The third amendment has always stated "in time of peace". The specification is due to the fact that any foreseeable war was to be fought on US soil (War of 1812!) and we didn't have the infrastructure to deal with housing troops in the event of that war.
I don't think SCOTUS has had to interpret "time of peace" in the 3rd Amendment in modern times.
The government is dead serious about turning every sizable company on the internet into a part of a gross-national cybersecurity infrastrucutre maintainer, and they are not going to quit until the internet has been adequately leashed by the legislative hand.
If corporations are people, this is definitely a violation of the 3rd amendment. Look it up, you probably haven't heard of it in the past couple hundred years or so.