Tech ► CISPA - The Newest Threat to Online Privacy

[Nine-Tailed Fox]

Here's the link to the petition (you don't have to live in the USA to sign it, so if you can spare a moment, sign it please!)

CISPA Petition - Stop CISPA (Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act)

Here’s some info on what will happen to you if you don’t sign this petition.

1. Your private information from sites, such as Facebook and Google, will be now available to the Goverment. And there’s jack you will be able to do about it. If someone doesn’t like you, they can go and check all the information Facebook and Google have about you

2. Your military will ALSO have access to said private info.

3. No warrants or subpoenas (also known as the “there’s jack you will be able to do about it” part)

4. Companies that join this become immune to criminal and civil liability (also “an aka the “there’s jack you will be able to do about it” part”)

If you don’t get how serious that is, watch this video, it’ll demonstrate.

As mentioned above, watching this video will help explain it in better perspective.

None of what i've been hearing about CISPA sounds pleasant, and anything that gives the government more power really isn't needed, so i'm just doing my best to spread this around. If we fought back against SOPA, PIPA and ACTA, we can do it again! But there's a short amount of time left, so here's to hoping we get more signatures.

 

[Reagan Rayden]

I don't really get why this is a bad thing that we should vote against. The description and the video are pretty vague.

 

[Taylor]

facebook already sells personal info to third parties and has been for years so


i mean i'm probably over-simplifying this, but it doesn't sound nearly as bad as SOPA or ACTA did

 

[Recon]

I'm a little bit tired of this now. For the past year or so, certain lobbyists think they can persuade the government to regulate information on the internet, but in all honesty, who gives a diddly.

Your private information from sites, such as Facebook and Google, will be now available to the Goverment. And there’s jack you will be able to do about it. If someone doesn’t like you, they can go and check all the information Facebook and Google have about you

So what if my Facebook or Google private information is available to the Government. If I was some serious threat, governing bodies with jurisdiction like the FBI or CIA would most likely already have access to mine and the millions of documented citizens in the United States. Facebook nor Google doesn't even contain any real important information besides your current location and only contains simply legal background information.

Your military will ALSO have access to said private info.

Why is this even a problem? Unless you're have criminal intent beyond an army, the military is probably better off running training exercises than checking your private information.

No warrants or subpoenas (also known as the “there’s jack you will be able to do about it” part)

Now here is where it gets interesting. Under the court of law, no warrants or subpoenas only apply to a specific regulation of the law. Meaning, if this passes, NO, this does not mean if you commit a crime that police have the right to invade your private property without legal proof of documentation. The law is composed of many courts of law and only will this apply to a specific set of laws pertaining to this subject.

Companies that join this become immune to criminal and civil liability (also “an aka the “there’s jack you will be able to do about it” part”)

A company, whether small business, partnership, joint venture, corporation, etc., will never be immune to criminal and civil liability. Too many laws and regulations apprehend how business fluctuates. In fact, companies who join this only seek to diminish technicalities in the law about information sharing and it's completely ethical to be worried about it.

If we fought back against SOPA, PIPA and ACTA...

It's has become quite apparent that lobbyists are either pro troll masters, or really have some devious intent behind this. In any case, I feel that it doesn't affect me and won't ever affect me until I've commit some serious crime.

 

[Nine-Tailed Fox]

i mean i'm probably over-simplifying this, but it doesn't sound nearly as bad as SOPA or ACTA did

Nah, it's nowhere close; I just used that as a loose reference. To be honest, I was pretty skeptical about this one, but there were a few things that bugged me.

So what if my Facebook or Google private information is available to the Government. If I was some serious threat, governing bodies with jurisdiction like the FBI or CIA would most likely already have access to mine and the millions of documented citizens in the United States. Facebook nor Google doesn't even contain any real important information besides your current location and only contains simply legal background information.

This was one of the things I frankly don't understand. Unless they wanted to know more 'personal' things about you (that guy's a brony let's lock him up). In all seriousness though, could this in any way be used to rid us of people who look into things concerning the government (in order to speak out against certain things)? (based off search history or such)

Why is this even a problem? Unless you're have criminal intent beyond an army, the military is probably better off running training exercises than checking your private information.

It was kind of an odd point. I don't really get it, either.

Now here is where it gets interesting. Under the court of law, no warrants or subpoenas only apply to a specific regulation of the law. Meaning, if this passes, NO, this does not mean if you commit a crime that police have the right to invade your private property without legal proof of documentation. The law is composed of many courts of law and only will this apply to a specific set of laws pertaining to this subject.

This was one of the two things that worried me, but I guess I didn't think it through oops. Still though, could just be me, but I feel like they might be slowly working towards it...just a feeling though.

A company, whether small business, partnership, joint venture, corporation, etc., will never be immune to criminal and civil liability. Too many laws and regulations apprehend how business fluctuates. In fact, companies who join this only seek to diminish technicalities in the law about information sharing and it's completely ethical to be worried about it.

I just don't like the idea of all of these 'larger' companies are getting involved with the government. It's a bit unnerving.

 

[Reagan Rayden]

Sooooo, if a person googled something that led to an illegal downloading site or something (like let's say piratebay) would they see this and come to bring that person to jail?

 

[Recon]

I just don't like the idea of all of these 'larger' companies are getting involved with the government. It's a bit unnerving.

This feeling might be caused by the purchasing power of the company and ultimately people at a younger age group or younger generation seem to have a hard time accepting it. These companies with economic muscle and power might seem intimidating to someone because they compare themselves in a perspective to where they stand in life. Remember, the companies mentioned, Facebook and Google, are Fortune 500 companies! Did Facebook get a little scandalous in selling personal information to third party companies? Perhaps. Is the law changing in a sense to protect data in this information era? Yes, but law doesn't change on a dime.

Sooooo, if a person googled something that led to an illegal downloading site or something (like let's say piratebay) would they see this and come to bring that person to jail?

You know this is a question I asked myself long ago when I got involved in piracy for the PSP (SUE ME!) and kinda struggled to understand the specific sections of law. Now with a little bit better and formal education, I might be able to illuminate you. I will primarily use two examples of pirating software, but portray different areas of law.

Example 1:
The DCMA and RIAA are mostly responsible for regulating intellectual property rights and file sharing. In 2011, a women in the state of Minnesota was sued by the RIAA for illegally downloading and sharing 1,700 files adding up to 1.5 million in damages. Did the RIAA have the standing to sue this women in Minnesota for downloading illegally? Yes. The judge's verdict? After appeal, the charges were compromised to $200,000.

What if the women was from another country and was sued in the United States for the same damages. Would the RIAA have a standing to sue? Yes. Why? Due to Diversity of the Citizen, the jurisdictional amount required is $75,000 to sue or changed by statute.

Source
DCMA/RIAA

Example 2:
In 2009, a gentlemen, James Burt, in Australia was sued by Nintendo for uploading and leaking New Super Mario Bros. Wii. Nintendo's claim to sue was that the company would incur loss of sales revenue and won by those means. The court awarded Nintendo with $1.5 AUD (1.3 USD settlement in that year only since AUS has seen currency conversion differences over recent years) Did Nintendo have the standing to sue James? Yes.

You specifically asked about The Pirate Bay, and did a little more research to understand a bit better. This is a lengthy process and admit that I might not profess it correctly, but will try to the best of my knowledge. The Pirate Bay has gotten TONS of threats from Fortune 500 companies and other government agencies working to protect digital intellectual property. In 2009, the founder of The Pirate Bay was put on trial for 30 million of damages. The severs at the time were located in Sweden, so the correct jurisdiction was held in Sweden. Let's just say Sweden has a few webs of law that was easily exploited by some of the crafty Webmasters who work on The Pirate Bay website. The creation of Magnet Links essentially created it harder to track down people downloading torrents and heavy encryption was set to assure a greater amount of protection. There is extensive information, but to answer your question; no, you have a very slim chance of getting sued. The reason is due to your act not causing enough damages to be pursued by the company or government agency. One quote I'll never forget, "Too much time and not enough personal gain" might just be the philosophy behind smaller claims, yet they can still be pursued regardless.