Obama to veto CISPA

i read that and my first thought was BRAVO

but then, experience told me, there was some kinda of deal, its all politics

nt for one second do i think any of his grandstanding is out of genuine concern for the civil liberties of the american citizen

and im not just hating, i hope the amendments on the floor pass muster and dont have too big of a price tag

forgive me for being a skeptic

Well, you two weren't who this was directed towards.

But while you are here, I mean, what else could the guy do in this matter.

He says he will veto it. He didn't say to amend it and give him a version he would pass.

but thats exactly what is happening, he said he would not sign it n its current form

I interepreted that to mean that the bill would have to be revamped, not that he was directing what needs to be done in order for him to pass it.

For example, with the prescription drug reform bill under Bush, he directed what he wanted in the proposed bill before he passed it. I didn't see that here.

We will see.

the amend's are a direct reponse to the very reasons why he said he would veto it

im sure the whitehouse let the players know what would be accepted

Part of CISPA, would, if I understand it correctly, authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security "to acquire, intercept, retain, use, and disclose communications and other system traffic that are transiting to or from or stored on Federal systems.”

However, it could be argued that this appears totalitarian.

There are no communications that do not “transit to” or through existing Federal systems and, there are no communications that are not “stored on” Federal systems in some way.

https://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/exclusive_national_security_agency_whistleblower_william

Would this not mean the Secretary of Homeland Security need only say that acquiring the information is necessary to counter cyber security threats? Since the Secretary will have no way of knowing which information will be relevant to that purpose until the data is filtered and analyzed, she will have to acquire it all in the process.

Once acquired, the amendment even allows the information to be used beyond the purview of protecting national security or against cyber threats.

A part of this says: “'information obtained pursuant to activities authorized under this  will be retained, used, or disclosed…”

And, here I believe is the kicker:

“… with the approval of the Attorney General, for law enforcement purposes when the information is evidence of a crime which has been, or  is being committed.

I don’t think our Attorney General is an honest man. I think that despite being probably a very smart guy, he’s not qualified for his current position. I won’t even comment in this context about his racial bigotry.

I don’t think even Orwell could have envisioned a scenario such as this.

This is nothing to cheer about. Obama was going to veto it for the wrong reasons:

Citizens have a right to know that corporations will be held legally accountable for failing to safeguard personal information adequately," OMB said, adding that the legislation "would inappropriately shield companies from any suits where a company's actions are based on cyber threat information identified, obtained, or shared under this bill, regardless of whether that action otherwise violated federal criminal law or results in damage or loss of life."

===============

Namely that the trial bar wasn't going to get enough lawsuits going.

Oh, and they're going to amend the bill and he will sign it.

Quote Originally Posted by be easy:



is that your campaign slogan?

WWRD

Rmoney

Notice how you didn't answer my question.

No doubt you are voting for Romney.

No doubt you won't be in here complaining when Romney does the same things.

Do you know why that is?

Quote Originally Posted by be easy:





your question was for those attacking obama and voting for rmoney, why would you expect me to answer it? YOU are the one pulling for rmoney, not me pal.

Rmoney. I like that.

I will 'sell' my Romney futures right after the Republican convention. Should be able to get Obama at about -130 then.

It is a serious question though. I really wonder what the people in this thread think ROmney would do. I know what you, Rick, and Rooster think but I am wondering about the others.

I don;'t know enough about the bill to comment

same exact thing or worse