Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SOPA 2.0?Follow

#1 Dec 12 2014 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
People are saying that HR 4681 is basically SOPA 2.0 and I don't have time to read before I run to get breakfast. Anyone less lazy than me already do so and care to confirm or refute that so I can continue to be lazy when I get home?
#2 Dec 12 2014 at 10:56 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
People are fucking lazy. If you want to pass a law saying it's illegal to eat cake, you only need to try to pass it 10 times. This is happening. Corporations do not lose, and they can play the game forever with infinite money. The corporations on the other "side" aren't powerful enough to do anything, even if they wanted to in any way but PR.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Dec 12 2014 at 11:00 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
It sounds like it's an appropriation bill passed to fund central intelligence agency activities through 2015.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#4 Dec 12 2014 at 11:02 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If you want to pass a law saying it's illegal to eat cake, you only need to try to pass it 10 times.
You can cut that in half if you say God says your having cake is a sin.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#5 Dec 12 2014 at 1:20 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
So, what will the world be without the internet I wonder? I can't really remember. I suppose everyone just stood around and sipped beer and talked about football or something.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#6 Dec 12 2014 at 1:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Kuwoobie wrote:
So, what will the world be without the internet I wonder? I can't really remember. I suppose everyone just stood around and sipped beer and talked about football or something.



No, you're thinking of King of the Hill, which you watched on Netflix.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#7 Dec 12 2014 at 1:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
I was never in my house pre-internet.
#8 Dec 12 2014 at 6:57 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
So, apparently, not really a sopa2.0, but similarly ******* in scope.

Well played, corps; well played.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#9 Dec 12 2014 at 8:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
angrymnk wrote:
So, apparently, not really a sopa2.0, but similarly ******* in scope.

Well played, corps; well played.


I'm not sure if I'm reading the wrong sections, or what, but I don't see how this is in any way related to SOPA or corporations. The discussions I've seen all speak about section 309 which is titled: PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS. This looks more like a modification of FISA than anything else. And it really looks more like it formalizes rules that are already in place. It does not authorize any new spying/eavesdropping/hacking/whatever. It just codifies what must be done with incidental information obtained as part of such activities. Specifically, that it must be destroyed after 5 years unless it meets some set of criteria.

There are a couple troubling bits with the exception cases, like the condition that the "communication is reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law enforcement agency", but I'm not sure that this law actually grants the power to do that versus simply allowing the exception with regards to data destruction in the event that said condition does exist. It's kinda the same as a bill saying "In a time of war, this rule we just wrote doesn't apply", isn't the same as declaring a state of war. It's just saying that if the condition exists, then the data can be retained.

I'd rather we be more focused on the legality of actually obtaining communications between US persons than quibbling over how long we can keep copies of it after the fact. But that's just me.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#10 Dec 12 2014 at 8:29 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
gbaji wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
So, apparently, not really a sopa2.0, but similarly ******* in scope.

Well played, corps; well played.


I'm not sure if I'm reading the wrong sections, or what, but I don't see how this is in any way related to SOPA or corporations. The discussions I've seen all speak about section 309 which is titled: PROCEDURES FOR THE RETENTION OF INCIDENTALLY ACQUIRED COMMUNICATIONS. This looks more like a modification of FISA than anything else. And it really looks more like it formalizes rules that are already in place. It does not authorize any new spying/eavesdropping/hacking/whatever. It just codifies what must be done with incidental information obtained as part of such activities. Specifically, that it must be destroyed after 5 years unless it meets some set of criteria.

There are a couple troubling bits with the exception cases, like the condition that the "communication is reasonably believed to constitute evidence of a crime and is retained by a law enforcement agency", but I'm not sure that this law actually grants the power to do that versus simply allowing the exception with regards to data destruction in the event that said condition does exist. It's kinda the same as a bill saying "In a time of war, this rule we just wrote doesn't apply", isn't the same as declaring a state of war. It's just saying that if the condition exists, then the data can be retained.

I'd rather we be more focused on the legality of actually obtaining communications between US persons than quibbling over how long we can keep copies of it after the fact. But that's just me.


Crap, you are right.

Well played Security Apparatus, well played.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#11 Dec 13 2014 at 2:49 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Alright, so I've found the section that they had been talking about and I'm not so sure how it relates to SOPA, but I don't like the privacy implications in it.
#12 Dec 13 2014 at 8:03 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
The One and Only Poldaran wrote:
Alright, so I've found the section that they had been talking about and I'm not so sure how it relates to SOPA, but I don't like the privacy implications in it.


The way it reads to me is "now it is totally legal to get everything in the vacuum". Extra props for vague language that can be twisted further.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#13 Dec 16 2014 at 5:56 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
White House petition is slowly gaining steam (8k atm )

Not that the administration will recoil in horror once it reaches 100k, but it is better than doing nothing at all ( jacking off does not qualify as doing nothing at all ).

edit: hmm, jacking off is not asterisked. Who knew?

Edited, Dec 16th 2014 6:57pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#14 Dec 16 2014 at 8:30 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
so less effective than jacking off?
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#15 Dec 16 2014 at 8:44 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
so less effective than jacking off?


Somehow it makes it seem... less worthwhile.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#16 Dec 16 2014 at 10:00 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
I'll bet there's less of a payoff with the petition.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#17 Dec 16 2014 at 10:07 PM Rating: Default
Scholar
***
1,323 posts
Debalic wrote:
I'll bet there's less of a payoff with the petition.


I think it is a wash.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#18 Dec 17 2014 at 8:18 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
so less effective than jacking off?
One is productive and makes you feel good about yourself, and the other is a petition.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#19 Dec 17 2014 at 8:32 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
One results in shameful weeping and disgusted looks from your parents while the other is masturbation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#20 Dec 17 2014 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'd rather we be more focused on the legality of actually obtaining communications between US persons than quibbling over how long we can keep copies of it after the fact. But that's just me.

Obviously kept forever, regardless of how law is codified. It's patently absurd to think that with no enforcement apparatus existing that intel agencies are going to just delete data they think may have value. I mean laugh out loud ludicrous.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#21 Dec 19 2014 at 10:47 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
I'd rather we be more focused on the legality of actually obtaining communications between US persons than quibbling over how long we can keep copies of it after the fact. But that's just me.

Obviously kept forever, regardless of how law is codified. It's patently absurd to think that with no enforcement apparatus existing that intel agencies are going to just delete data they think may have value. I mean laugh out loud ludicrous.

All those empty missile silos out in Kansas can just be turned into data storage pools. Fill 'em with Seagates.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#22 Dec 20 2014 at 4:15 AM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Thus was Skynet born in Kansas!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#23 Dec 22 2014 at 8:28 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
No wonder the current Terminator timeline is in such shambles.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 273 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (273)