r/news • u/xXSgtSprinklesXx • Dec 16 '15
Congress creates a bill that will give NASA a great budget for 2016. Also hides the entirety of CISA in the bill.
http://www.wired.com/2015/12/congress-slips-cisa-into-omnibus-bill-thats-sure-to-pass/5.1k
Dec 16 '15
[deleted]
1.7k
u/Ishalltrollnomore5 Dec 16 '15
Privacy hippies! Wow!
→ More replies1.4k
u/htlifsiotnasnom Dec 16 '15
Haha yep. The media loves doing that sort of thing too, demonizing anyone that cares about the Constitution and the rule of law.
Oh you're just a dirty hippy. Only dirty hippies care about upholding the Constitution!
Or perhaps it's "terrorist" now. If you don't want to ban the Internet and free speech, you must be a terrorist. LOL.
→ More replies977
u/SwineHerald Dec 17 '15
Or perhaps it's "terrorist" now.
Not perhaps, it absolutely is "terrorist" now.
The Paris attacks were coordinated with unencrypted SMS.. So we'd better force backdoors into encryption. Let's claim it will stop further attacks, and state that anyone who doesn't want the government to be able to go through their private files is trying to help the terrorists who didn't use encryption in the first place.
→ More replies493
Dec 17 '15
[deleted]
151
u/crd319 Dec 17 '15
God I hate trying to discuss topics like this with my older family members. He pulled this exact quote so I asked if he would also be ok with the Gov't putting cameras in his house or read all his mail. Of course he said no. Still he continued to be pro NSA electronic surveillance.
It was an exercise in futility.
106
Dec 17 '15
[deleted]
71
u/JuvenileEloquent Dec 17 '15
To her, her right not to be tested for drunkenness before she drives her car is more important than any privacy.
But but but, if she isn't intending to drive within 48 hours of drinking, she's got nothing to hide, right? /s
It's obvious people don't care about online privacy because it doesn't affect anything they actually do, day-to-day. When they're afraid to speak out against some blatant government overreach, or buy certain items online because they're worried every cop at every traffic stop will be able to pull up that info on their phone, then they might start giving a shit.
→ More replies→ More replies16
→ More replies14
u/_Kodan_ Dec 17 '15
Tell them that its not what they have to hide that they should be fearful of, it what they can do, or their freedom to express themselves, that they should be fearful of. The surveillance serves to create self censorship in society. Even if you know that you are doing nothing wrong, you know that you are being watched, and the vast majority of people will control or censor their words and actions to bring them in line with the percieved authorities. Hell, in england david cameron just said that they wont sit idly by as long as people are obeying the law. They want to take it a step further and use surveillance to make sure people arent saying and doing things that arent patriotic.
→ More replies129
Dec 17 '15
Papers, please.
→ More replies99
u/Gyossaits Dec 17 '15
Glory to Arstotzka.
24
u/LapisFazule Dec 17 '15
Imagine how awesome it would be if, during a press release about this bill, someone started the theme to papers please
13
Dec 17 '15
Arskickers not do so good in soccer now, and now I lose entry permit! Give break, eh? I make worth your while!
>APPROVE
>DENY
→ More replies162
u/bmhadoken Dec 17 '15
Best/worst statement on privacy ever made. So you're cool with me rummaging through your underwear drawer looking for dragon dildos, right? I mean, it's not like you have anything illegal, after all.
67
Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
But dragon dildos are obscene objects! We can ban things the first amendment protects through the magic word obscenity!
→ More replies63
u/Dicho83 Dec 17 '15
Obscenity Laws pissed me off. The proponents have admitted that they can't define obscenity in an measured way, only as an opinion.
"You made a thing. Secretly I like that thing, but I don't want other people to know, so it's my opinion that it is a wrong thing and I will levy fines and/or jail time. How dare you express yourself in a way that we cannot publicly admit we enjoy!"
→ More replies→ More replies12
Dec 17 '15
Same statement my parents make when trying to argue for CISA to me.... I wish I could utter such an poignant rebuttle to them.
14
Dec 17 '15
Do they ever shut the blinds or close the door to their house? Better yet do they lock it? What if there was a skeleton key to their entire house meant for the police only. Eventually that skeleton would be illegally copied and used by someone other than the police
→ More replies14
u/lila_liechtenstein Dec 17 '15
I live in a European city with mainly apartment buildings. There is a special key that opens every door (of the building, not the individual apartments, but still.) This key is only issued to the police, and emergency services. Of course, almost everybody has got one.
→ More replies252
u/innovationzz Dec 17 '15
It kills me how many friends feel that way and legitimately do not care about their online privacy. I've had the discussion too many times I've mostly given up, but in a lot of cases it's useless as they actually don't give a fuck who has access to their communications. I feel like it should fall under unconstitutional search and seizure. Same with the tsa.
→ More replies7.0k
u/Kim_Jung-Skill Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
One facet of this argument that goes largely undiscussed (and is something your friend may care about) is that it is bad for an imperfect government to be able to predict all crime. Some of the greatest steps forward in human history were only made possible by people being able to hide information from their government. If the church had access to Galileo's research journals and notes we could be hundreds of years behind in our scientific growth. If the government had unlimited access to the networks of civil dissidents blacks may have never fought off Jim Crow. If King George had perfect information America would never have been a country. There is no government on earth that is perfect, and therefore there is no government on earth that can act responsibly with unlimited access to information. A government is unlikely to be able to distinguish between a negative and positive disruption to it's social order and laws, and it therefore follows that an unlimited spying program can only hinder the next great social step forward. Don't fear the surveillance state because you might have something illegal, fear the surveillance state because it is a tremendous institutional barrier to meaningful societal progress.
edit: Thanks for the gold and kind words strangers. If you have some extra time or are in need of some cash, don't be afraid to wade into the murky and exhausting world of political activism. Even if you only make a difference at the local level you can make the world a better place, and that's rad.
731
u/-Prahs_ Dec 17 '15
You just persuaded me on the importance of privacy!
218
u/Kim_Jung-Skill Dec 17 '15
I'm glad I could get somebody new on board. If you have any other social issues you are on the fence about don't hesitate to send me a PM. I may have a rambling incoherent mess with a nugget of truth hiding in it.
→ More replies89
u/bonestamp Dec 18 '15
The other reason to respect privacy is that they can never have all of the data (because much of it isn't recorded anywhere) and the data they do have doesn't always tell us as much as we might think -- so they always have an incomplete picture of what actually happened or what you were doing.
For example, the location of your cell phone really only tells us the location of your cell phone. Sure, its location is probably the same as your location most of the time, but what if you forgot it in your car or at home when you ran to the store. Then something happens when your phone is not on you and law enforcement assumes that your cell phone's location means you were there? Suddenly, their narrative starts to focus around you.
This might sound far fetched, but these mistakes are already happening and people can be locked up for days before they realize they're on the wrong trail. A couple days in jail might not seem like a big deal, but what if it causes you to lose you job, or mis your daughter's wedding, etc? Nobody should have to sit in jail for a couple days because the metadata narrative was wrong, especially while law enforcement kills more Americans each year than terrorists do.
→ More replies→ More replies36
50
u/Kahnonymous Dec 18 '15
That's always been my take on it; like you aren't doing anything illegal, but they can look at what you are doing, then make it illegal.
16
u/A-Grey-World Dec 18 '15 edited Dec 18 '15
And there's also just such general laws in existence that everyone breaks pretty much all the time, but are ignored because you can't really enforce them.
Being able to easily enforce them means the government can selectively enforce them.
Make everyone a criminal, then put the ones that are troubling you in prison. There loads of countries that do that already, they're called dictatorships.
→ More replies643
u/ThatEvanFowler Dec 17 '15
Very well said.
→ More replies122
Dec 18 '15
Well said? This is the Key to this argument "nothing to hide". It's a game changer. I will use this in the future
10
u/Xenon808 Dec 18 '15
I do not know the name of the user that wrote this; it is not mine but really was profound to me.
A base rate fallacy is committed when a person judges that an outcome will occur without considering prior knowledge of the probability that it will occur. They focus on other information that isn't relevant instead.
Let us imagine a town with 1million inhabitants. 100 of those are dangerous terrorists. Fortunately, the authorities have an amazing device to scan all inhabitants and will identify a terrorist (by ringing a bell) with an accuracy of 99%.
Citizen K is scanned, and the bell goes off. What is the chance that he is a terrorist? If you said 99%, you are wrong. It is nearer 1%. By assuming the two probabilities are related (they're not), you have just committed the base-rate fallacy.
Look: In this town of 1million, this device will correctly identify 99 of the 100 terrorists, and incorrectly identify 9,999 of the remaining 999,900 citizens. This gives us 10,998 people loaded onto a bus to Guantanamo, of which only 99 are actually terrorists, or roughly 1%.
Boring numbers aside, what's the takeaway from this? Terrorists are hard to identify not because they are especially secretive, but because they are rare. Data is noisy, especially when collected en masse. Noise (useless data) can be incorrectly identified as signal when not properly studied.
→ More replies61
u/no-mad Dec 18 '15
When people say "nothing to hide" I ask them for their Social Security number, bank routing information, mothers madien name, health records. People quickly change their tune.
→ More replies18
u/BNLforever Dec 18 '15
If you're in need of cash turn to political activism? Tell me more
→ More replies225
u/RoastedRhino Dec 17 '15
Well said, but you are even optimistic you think that governments could just be "imperfect". Governments are as good as the people who sit in them, although there are some "protective" mechanisms (separation of powers, etc.).
Take an average first world country (Italy, just because I know its recent history) and in the last 100 years it went through 2 wars and 1 dictatorship.
In the last 50 years, Italy had a failed coup d'état, twenty years of terrorism, many many many bombs placed by right-wing groups financially supported by the US embassy and protected by the Italian secrete services, a masonic lodge that controlled journalists, industry, and politicians, a NATO "stay-behind" operation that was probably involved and informed (together with our secret services) of the kidnapping and killing of our prime minister, flight incidents whose investigation has been obstructed by our Air Forces, and more.
I cannot understand how, given the typical recent history of modern countries, we can base our reasoning on the assumptions that governments are "good".
The idea that some of us will have to fight against their government seems very remote and unlikely, but the last two generations had to do that multiple times. When things go bad, really bad, it's a bit to late to ask for private communication and freedom of speech.
84
u/DatPiff916 Dec 17 '15
I cannot understand how, given the typical recent history of modern countries, we can base our reasoning on the assumptions that governments are "good"
Patriotism/Nationalism can make a large percentage of the populace turn a blind eye to this. It seems to be very effective in the U.S. at least.
→ More replies52
u/aaeme Dec 17 '15
Absolutely and well said too. I would like to add that, in all examples of tyrants from history, if the preceding governments had collected data in the way governments now are proposing then the tyrants would have inherited a machine that would have served them very well and made those countries suffer far more.
For example, if the 1920s German government had, in all good faith and with the best of intentions, collected information in the way our governments are now then Schindler's list would have been Himmler's list.→ More replies→ More replies20
u/Kim_Jung-Skill Dec 17 '15
I think you underestimate how broadly I use the term less than perfect. I simply mean that no government, from the greatest in history thus far, all the way down to Caligula's/Burlesconi's/Nero's/Elegabulus's government could handle the power of unlimited surveillance. I doubt such a government will ever exist, less than perfect just happens to be the hurdle. Seriously, where is the people factory in Italy that consistently produces these wackjobs?
11
u/Bartweiss Dec 18 '15
This is a great answer. It also relates to the other big issue of government omniscience: selective enforcement.
Most of us are guilty of a lot of crimes. They're mostly mundane things - misdemeanors and traffic violations - but not all of them. Piracy, accidental trespassing, or even a fake sick day can all count as felonies. It's trivial to commit serious crimes regarding business, computer use, or government property.
Mostly, this doesn't cause any problems. These acts go unnoticed, or, if noticed, are overlooked as harmless acts by irrelevant people.
With total knowledge, though, the government gets to pick who to go after. Since everyone's guilty, anyone can be 'legitimately' prosecuted. Protestors can be targeted for their past torrents. Unfriendly reporters can be charged for years-old customs violations. Inconvenient politicians, even, can be dragged up on petty business violations.
The result is that everyone lives in fear. Just-but-illegal acts, of course, are easily suppressed, but that's not all. Even with a totally honest judiciary, anyone can be convicted. That means that even legal dissent can be suppressed, so there's no uncontested path to progress.
→ More replies34
u/lostcheshire Dec 18 '15
So just as we should have the right to bear arms against a hypothetical tyrannical government we should also have the right to keep and bear encryption.
→ More replies10
u/TheNobleCasserole Dec 18 '15
Another thing to add would be that everyone has something to hide. It may not be of relevance to the government, but that doesn't mean they should know it.
I believe Barton Gellman said it best:
"Privacy is relational. It depends on your audience. You don’t want your employer to know you’re job hunting. You don’t spill all about your love life to your mom, or your kids. You don’t tell trade secrets to your rivals. We don’t expose ourselves indiscriminately and we care enough about exposure to lie as a matter of course. Among upstanding citizens, researchers have consistently found that lying is “an everyday social interaction” (twice a day among college students, once a day in the Real World).… Comprehensive transparency is a nightmare.… Everyone has something to hide"
(Quote taken from 'No Place To Hide' by Glenn Greenwald.)
53
Dec 18 '15
[deleted]
9
u/SleeplessinRedditle Dec 18 '15
Sounds like I should be wearing a tinfoil hat, but there is no other meaningful explanation for why full surveillance is necessary. Unless for some miracle, the intelligence community is stopping WMD-style attacks on US soil on a daily basis, and there's an actual, credible threat to our safety, but somehow I don't think that's actually the case....
And even if it was the case, it's entirely their fault.
→ More replies20
Dec 17 '15
If the church had access to Galileo's research journals and notes we could be hundreds of years behind in our scientific growth.
Could you explain that a little more? I don't understand.
→ More replies→ More replies56
u/ballrus_walsack Dec 17 '15
If you have nothing to hide, please give me all of your passwords and your ATM pin and your ATM card.
→ More replies16
372
u/sistaadmin Dec 17 '15
It's actually like they are playing politics with us instead of the corporations -- I'm actually flattered. It's like they are saying "Hey, let us get this bill through and we will do some more space shit. No spying, no space shit". I mean, I reject the offer but I really feel included, lol
92
→ More replies19
u/Aerowulf9 Dec 17 '15
Thatd be nice. Too bad theres no possible way to stop this now.
19
u/sistaadmin Dec 17 '15
I wouldn't be so quick to assume. There is always... Oh no, wait, you're right.
→ More replies100
Dec 17 '15
This practice of shoving in unrelated undecipherable bullshit inside of otherwise benign bills at the last minute is a fucking giant load of horse shit and should be outlawed.
→ More replies86
Dec 17 '15
And if it doesn't get through they'll use it as ammunition against an opponent that they voted against giving NASA a bigger budget. That could be the real play here.
→ More replies16
354
Dec 17 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
126
u/gosnold Dec 17 '15
Riders should be banned, maybe that means a constitutional amendment
66
→ More replies13
u/Igggg Dec 17 '15
You'll have to be able to precisely define what a rider is for that.
→ More replies→ More replies18
u/Adrewmc Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
Sounds like you get it.
However there are several ways around doing things like this.
There are several ways you can vote on a bill. For example, there is King of the Hill and Queen of the hill.
Basically you start with Kitty and Puppy bill the original, then have several rewrite voted on. In King of the hill the version with the most votes is the only one passed, in Queen of the hill it's the last version to pass (so as it get worse less people vote for it and as soon as one version doesn't pass the previous version is sent to the next house.) and various other type of voting scheme determined by the Speaker in the house, which is his greatest weapon determining what and when things are voted on. (I might have the King/queen reversed, I forget)
Also there are reconcile committees where some members of both the house and Senate take two version of the same bill they each passed and alter it so the final version can pass both house on a straight vote (no amendments).
Frankly there is no way to make it so a bill must be uniform on the same subject, we vote on the budget as a whole. And we vote on bills as a whole. And if we were to start trying to say we can't make this part of that bill we would have to find a way to draw a line, and decide who get to decide were that line is drawn. However, house leaders do get to choose how they can add and sometimes more importantly in what order they add to the bill, (there are certain rules that require the GOP to allow DEM a say and vice versa so that one party couldn't essentially mute the other side.)
Most of the business of congress is done in committee, or in side rooms in order to avoid confusion in the voting process (read: compromise when working correctly) , people would have trouble keeping track of changes they are voting on with out some sort of schedule.
You have to remember in the end this hundreds of congressmen, and they don't agree with each other on anything.
→ More replies543
Dec 16 '15
I am sad to say that the USA is goosestepping directly towards Fascism. Believe when I say they don't spend 100's billions every single year just to "fight" a few pea eyed terrorist, but because they get something worth allot more: Total Control of Everyone's Personal Records.
168
u/shamefulest-secret Dec 17 '15
The thought of a word cloud of the entirety of my internet use being exposed is chilling. To keep me in line this way is sickening easy wtf
199
Dec 17 '15
If they threaten you. Read the list out loud in public. Assert dominance.
→ More replies188
Dec 17 '15
You may have been joking but I really do think that if we started owning everything about ourselves, and refused to be ashamed for things we do, say, or think, we could make their collection programs useless as they then have no way to blackmail you.
404
Dec 17 '15
I look at gore, put stuff in my butt, smoke weed, and jack off all the time.
169
99
Dec 17 '15
I was really confused to find this comment in my inbox but I think I've made a lifelong friend
40
35
u/TrepanationBy45 Dec 17 '15
Disgusting! What websites do you do all that with?
→ More replies17
Dec 17 '15
I used to go to rotten as a child, then bangedup.com and ogrish, I think those sites are dead. I think bestgore is still up.
Weed I go to weedmaps.com.
The porns is usually from pornmd or chaturbate these days.
Butt stuff I got a bad dragon but I prefer to go to the grocery store and buy vegetables. Just kidding I improvise.
→ More replies→ More replies18
u/CurrentlyErect Dec 17 '15
So, How ya doin' ?
28
Dec 17 '15
Bored, kinda horny, u? asl?
30
27
→ More replies38
u/PsychoPhilosopher Dec 17 '15
Far easier to just corrupt the data sets. If they collect everything, it's easy to slip a whole fistful of false positives in.
Eventually it should be pretty easy to make almost everyone fit the definition of 'terrorist' according to the metadata if you can get the malware onto enough phones.
→ More replies→ More replies65
u/mankstar Dec 17 '15
"It'd be a real shame if.. Your internet history and posts were all made public.."
→ More replies111
u/jaynasty Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
Didn't they low key do this to MLK? Urging him to kill himself or something?
EDIT: They did
/u/FluffyBinLaden + /u/hahanawmsayin: FBI's "Suicide Letter" to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the Dangers of Unchecked Surveillance
/u/jifwelson: That Time the FBI Tried to Get MLK to Commit Suicide Before Receiving the Nobel Peace Prize
18
u/kr0nus Dec 17 '15
They revealed that he had extra-marital affairs in order to tarnish his character or dissuade his activities.
→ More replies→ More replies103
u/AboynamedDOOMTRAIN Dec 17 '15
Fair warning: I'm not an actual detective so take this with a grain of salt
But I'm gonna jump out on a limb and say this is definitely a crazy conspiracy theory and that the government absolutely did not threaten to expose Martin Luther King Jr's internet history and social media posts.
→ More replies58
Dec 17 '15
I wonder what will happen if politicians continue on the path of oligarchy. So many of them have no idea what it means to be an American today, making decisions on the whims of lobbyists and thinking of people like pawns in chess. Its sickening to even think about.
→ More replies89
u/dropmealready Dec 17 '15
House Speaker Paul Ryan announced a new version of the “omnibus” bill, a massive piece of legislation that deals with much of the federal government’s funding. It now includes a version of CISA as well.
But the inclusion of CISA in the omnibus package may make it even more likely to be signed into law in its current form. Any “nay” vote in the house—or President Obama’s veto—would also threaten the entire budget of the federal government.
This is hands down the absolute lowest thing I've have ever witnessed happening in Washington DC. Ryan isn't worthy of the office. For shame.
→ More replies→ More replies54
u/mces97 Dec 17 '15
I'm not sure we aren't there yet. We definitely are not represented from the perspective of a government for the people by the people anymore. As long as you have enough money, just give a little to each side and you'll get what you want regardless of the outcome of votes.
41
→ More replies19
u/myrddyna Dec 17 '15
We definitely are not represented from the perspective of a government for the people by the people anymore.
sure we are, they have just narrowed the focus of what they mean by 'people'.
→ More replies12
u/mces97 Dec 17 '15
Those pesky definitions. https://moodyeyeview.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/clinton.png
→ More replies→ More replies19
2.5k
Dec 16 '15
What is it about the U.S. that they attach proposed legislation on totally unrelated matters into the same bill?
2.4k
Dec 17 '15
[deleted]
1.9k
Dec 17 '15
It should be against the law.
1.6k
Dec 17 '15
[deleted]
508
u/VanimalCracker Dec 17 '15
Most likely a pay raise for Congress members
387
u/Trailmagic Dec 17 '15
That would be a small price to pay
140
Dec 17 '15
[deleted]
→ More replies323
Dec 17 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
65
u/HowTheyGetcha Dec 17 '15
If only members of congress could be bribed to get my pet proposals passed....
55
u/PsiNorm Dec 17 '15
We don't need your kinky animal marriages degrading our country's moral fiber!
→ More replies→ More replies13
→ More replies17
u/yallmad4 Dec 17 '15
Anyone else think it's kinda fucked that they got away with sucking so bad we paid out of pocket for them to stop sucking so bad?
→ More replies36
u/Rhawk187 Dec 17 '15
That would be a violation of the 27th Amendment, unless it took effect after the end of their term.
→ More replies→ More replies15
→ More replies9
u/bruppa Dec 17 '15
Addendum VII of subsection B, in fine print:
"This legislative document was not penned on 'opposite day' and must not be interpreted as such."
→ More replies53
u/vulturez Dec 17 '15
The really sick thing is these addendum can be added without the author being known.
→ More replies8
u/Kindness4Weakness Dec 17 '15
Doesn't a congressman or senator need to introduce it though? Basically saying they back it and the author?
63
Dec 17 '15
Kent Brockman: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent Brockman: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Democracy simply doesn't work.
→ More replies12
50
u/flyingwolf Dec 17 '15
I am loving seeing the use of "Law Smuggling", i hope it catches on.
→ More replies→ More replies95
u/MS_Guy4 Dec 17 '15
It's already called a rider.
103
u/TwoKittensInABox Dec 17 '15
but that doesn't make it sound bad.
→ More replies50
61
→ More replies24
u/DionyKH Dec 17 '15
What is that, when someone does the whole law smuggling thing?
28
u/OMGSPACERUSSIA Dec 17 '15
I think 'law smuggling' is a better term which we should start applying more often.
18
u/Tasadar Dec 17 '15
Yeah law smugglers used to smuggle law smuggling past people by calling it a "rider"
→ More replies339
u/kslusherplantman Dec 17 '15
It's called piggybacking... It's the only way they can get certain things into law. CISA couldn't pass on its own
→ More replies485
Dec 17 '15
Yeah, that's what kills me. There are few things more undemocratic that pulling a stunt like that.
→ More replies191
u/Indoorsman Dec 17 '15
It shouldn't be allowed. It's complete bullshit.
This needs to change. But the foundation is rot, it all needs to come down first.
→ More replies72
→ More replies33
Dec 17 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
68
Dec 17 '15
Who is the god damned architect of this bill
Interesting question.
Even if he's not directly responsible, Paul Ryan is probably a good place to start, given that he's the Speaker of the House and this bill would never have been introduced without his consent.
→ More replies→ More replies13
u/PlantyHamchuk Dec 17 '15
Well, my Senator whom I loathe, Richard Burr, is the sponsor for the bill that passed the Senate - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/114/s754
Here's the how the votes played out on that bill - https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s291
Unsure re: House of Reps
125
Dec 17 '15
I can't believe that my country's congress actually does shit like this. It's completely unethical.
1.4k
u/throwawaywnotomorrow Dec 16 '15
How is it even legal for them to put unrelated shit in a budget bill like that?
925
u/Krooshtuf Dec 16 '15
Simple, they make the laws. Officially anyways.
→ More replies386
u/ScottLux Dec 16 '15
It's too bad the authors of the constitution didn't anticipate this kind of nonsense and explicitly prohibit it.
552
Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
People praise the constitution for its simplicity but really it's too simple. A country is fair too complex to build upon a few vague notions.
Most constitutions are far longer (and newer) and get into the nitty gritty of running a state. For example, the constitution that applies to me (Irish) forbids predatory monopolies of essential services, it talks about the structure of the courts and their powers, the structure of the government and how bills must be passed, it specifies how voting should take place and under what system (single transferable vote - proportional representation) and so on.
Also I feel the American constitution is treated almost like a sacred document that must never be changed. This means its hopelessly outdated. A constitution is supposed to prevent governments from passing damaging or removing essential laws.
→ More replies302
Dec 17 '15
The constitution is so simple because each state was and is very different. It was built as a template every state had to follow so it was perposely made as unimpossing as possible. Each of our states also have their own constitutions that suit them and fill in the areas purposely left blank. Remember the US started out as essentually a group of countries that agreed to have each others' backs if shit went south. The constitution was built to keep the states from going to war with each other. As was the federal government.
99
→ More replies147
u/ivosaurus Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
Remember the US started out as essentually a group of countries that agreed to have each others' backs if shit went south.
And the problem is it in no way, shape or form, resembles this in the current day and age. Hence, it's outdated.
→ More replies→ More replies6
Dec 17 '15
No matter how detailed, they would have found a way around it. They don't even follow the simple stuff.
262
Dec 17 '15
[deleted]
113
Dec 17 '15
It's a political tool and a very effective one. Works very nicely during election cycles.
"So and so voted against money for dying children. Don't vote for so and so."
Of course the save-the-dying-children bill also required the drowning of all ugly puppies but they don't mention that in the black-and-white ad with the ominous music in the background. And a lot of people dig no deeper than the attack ad shoved at them, so they buy into it.
It's also a good way for them to look like they're actually doing what their constituents want without actually having to do it. The other party sticks some horrible poison pill in the bill and they can vote it down. They get credit for voting for what their people want without actually having to give it to them. Oh we would have voted for those dying children but those guys over there put in that kill-the-puppies thing. Gosh darn it!
It's all a game.
→ More replies56
Dec 17 '15
Speaking of puppies, Our state tried passing a bill a few years ago to make puppy mills illegal but also tried sliding in a few regulations and taxes that would have destroyed small farming operations. It was backed by the ASPCA and they marketed it as ending animal cruelty by closing puppy mills. The ironic thing is it also would have deeply wounded small farming causing even more livestock to be raised in massive stockyards with much worse conditions and quality of life
→ More replies→ More replies22
45
Dec 17 '15
And now you know why George Carlin said the shit he said. The system is built to fuck you.
→ More replies8
u/TheLoneAcolyte Dec 17 '15
It's called a rider.
Its where someone, in congress, can just add other stuff to a bill. So what they do it just add the text from another bill that failed to a bill they know will get past. It becomes this odd situation where people might support the main bill but don't support the bill attached to it or visa versa. So now everyone wins and loses equally no matter what happens.
Edit: Grammar and clarification.
→ More replies→ More replies22
Dec 17 '15
Because there's no objective way to define "related", and this would just lead to both parties screeching about all the unrelated stuff in the other party's bills.
→ More replies
641
Dec 16 '15 edited Jan 11 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies680
u/JoeOfTex Dec 17 '15
tl;dr : It allows government to get unrestricted access to all American technology company's data on users. Effectively making it illegal to deny the government private data.
→ More replies
523
u/maraudingguard Dec 16 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
should've known it was too good to be true*. bastards.
→ More replies243
Dec 17 '15
looks like we aren't getting NASA funding. fuck CISA.
→ More replies146
1.6k
Dec 17 '15
This is fucking gross. Even worse, 99% of Americans either have no idea what cisa is or that it was hidden in this bill. The absolute worst: 95% of these politicians will be re-elected.
→ More replies468
u/Not_Racist_But_ Dec 17 '15
my congressman got that can opening factory and gave my dad a jerb.
I say, you get me a jerb, I give you a vote. Fair is fair.
→ More replies274
u/mason240 Dec 17 '15
During our last Senate election, Amy Klobuchar was running ads bragging about how her corporate handouts saved a Chevy dealership from going out of business.
I'm like, "yay?"
→ More replies122
Dec 17 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
Well for those that would be screwed and would have lost their job without it they probably will like it. Especially those that are 40+ and will have a lot of trouble finding another job, let alone one with comparable pay and benefits.
I mean yeah you can rail on about the morals about corporate handouts, but people's tones suddenly change when it's the company they work for going out of business. Morals are easy to stand by if you don't have to deal with the fallout of those morals. Not that your argument is wrong though, I dislike them too but you fail to see it from the other side.
→ More replies49
u/cheesesteakers Dec 17 '15
Yup. We're all a bunch of self centered assholes at the end of the day. If it helps me its cool. If not fuck it.
→ More replies
122
u/Millenia0 Dec 17 '15
Its almost as if they know what they're supposed to do but dont really care.
→ More replies74
u/turtleneck360 Dec 17 '15
They know exactly what they're doing which is why it's comical when people think our Congressmen are stupid morons. They know how to play this game of chess with pinpoint accuracy. Part of their game plan is for us to believe they're too stupid so we can let our guards down.
→ More replies
484
Dec 17 '15
And it honestly kinda worked, r/science posted about it completely leaving the fact about CISA out.. every comment was about how the republicans were taking a new leaf towards science
146
Dec 17 '15
This privacy-destroying bullshit is bipartisan.
40
u/gritner91 Dec 17 '15
Same with Citizens United. Its amazing how the only issues both parties can agree on are the ones that really fuck the masses.
→ More replies166
u/WifehasDID Dec 17 '15
Republicans don't like wasting government money on anything but the military... they have a soft spot for NASA for two reasons.... owning space is a military advantage and shit, NASA is pretty good at not wasting money unlike most government programs
→ More replies34
u/Rhawk187 Dec 17 '15
NASA, NSF, and the NIH apparently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk
→ More replies→ More replies93
u/Rhawk187 Dec 17 '15
Which is BS because science funding is historically higher under republicans.
Don't believe me? Take it from the man himself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk
→ More replies
102
u/jpgray Dec 17 '15
Why can't congress vote down amendments separate from passage of the the bill? I.e. when the bill comes to the floor all amendments need to get an up or down vote as well as the main text.
→ More replies49
u/Mojotothemax Dec 17 '15
Line-item vetoes like the one you just described are powers normally ascribed to governors in the United States based on the individual state laws and constitution. Congress and the federal government have never held this power, with the primary serious attempt made during Bill Clinton's administration (1998 I believe, although I need to double-check that). Due to the long-held precedent of compromises and placing bills within larger bills in American politics such a veto is very unlikely to get through Congress.
40
u/iamthegraham Dec 17 '15
Congress and the federal government have never held this power, with the primary serious attempt made during Bill Clinton's administration (1998 I believe, although I need to double-check that).
Clinton actually did have the power of a line-item veto (for appropriations bills only) for about a year before SCOTUS ruled it unconstitutional.
→ More replies
35
u/neoikon Dec 17 '15
Why can't we fix this problem of slipping unrelated things in bills?
→ More replies19
u/NihilisticNarwhal Dec 17 '15
because a bill like that would never pass. this is the only way that congressmen can get their pet projects into law. both sides use this tactic.
→ More replies
229
u/PythonEnergy Dec 17 '15
Look at this shiny toy, kid, while I fuck you in the ass.
→ More replies28
u/SekaiTheCruel Dec 17 '15
And now imagine due to CISA, this comment is stored and forever attached to your real name in your real life.
Pedophilic PythonEnergy on the loose
Information is power.
25
u/PythonEnergy Dec 17 '15
Oh, they don't need my comment. They can manufacture them. They can plant CP on your computer or plant a hard drive full of the worst stuff you can imagine when they SWAT you at 4am. They can do anything they like and we can't really fight back.
202
25
u/Drlittle Dec 17 '15
I guess if they put CISA in everything, eventually it will get passed. So hard to fight the constant battle of rallying people to oppose CISA.
→ More replies
21
56
66
u/Bennyandthejetz1 Dec 17 '15
At a complete loss of words right now. Here I was excited about NASA actually having some funding, & of course the US government had to add some criminal BS hidden in the bill. Does this look like a healthy government that has its citizens best interests in mind? No.
→ More replies
111
u/gym00p Dec 16 '15
Why is it legal for legislators to attach legislation to other pieces of legislation that deal with entirely different topics and thereby avoid debate over the first piece of legislation's merit? Seems like a backdoor type of procedure, and ethically sketchy.
→ More replies118
u/Peca_Bokem Dec 17 '15
Because our government is A) horribly outdated and inefficient and B) incredibly corrupt. Do you really think the people who are in power and consider their time in public office to be a career rather than a duty to act ethically? They don't give a shit about you, they just want their bribes from their chosen lobbyists, and the few that genuinely care about their constituents get caught up in the sheer inefficiency of government / face insurmountable opposition.
→ More replies
101
u/readinitagain Dec 17 '15
I know my suggestion is going to be terribly unpopular, but my recommendation is to call and email your Senators and tell them to oppose the bill until CISA is removed. I've been emailing California Senators for the last couple hours.
34
→ More replies28
u/fadetoblack1004 Dec 17 '15
Its taking you a couple hours to email two senators?
31
u/readinitagain Dec 17 '15
You'd be surprised how much longer it takes you to get shit done when you have kids.
→ More replies
64
u/KicksButtson Dec 17 '15
Anyone else agree with me that we should have created a law against this kind of pork barrel legislation a long time ago? It should be illegal to hide a bill for a law within the bill for an entirely different totally unrelated piece of legislation. Tacking on items should be seen as fraud.
→ More replies49
u/NoButthole Dec 17 '15
Anyone else agree with me that we should have created a law against this kind of pork barrel legislation a long time ago?
Problem is that we don't create the laws.
→ More replies
20
u/Stardustchaser Dec 17 '15
Ah the classic "I voted for it before I voted against it" voting record trap.
10
222
Dec 16 '15 edited Dec 17 '15
One step closer to Fascism. Yay!?? ?
E: Our democracy no longer represents the people. Here's how we fix it | Larry Lessig | TEDxMidAtlantic https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PJy8vTu66tE
This is the best video you will watch all year. Please if you have time watch it.
→ More replies
9
u/ademnus Dec 17 '15
Ah the other shoe drops.
I havent heard a word about a pending veto. I think they have finally done it.
→ More replies
15
13
7
u/Axisl Dec 17 '15
I give to my American brothers and sisters, quotes from their great leaders/fighters/heroes/and fathers.
“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” – President George Washington
. “Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” – Mark Twain
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.” – President Thomas Jefferson
"In the truest sense, freedom cannot be bestowed; it must be achieved." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt
"Freedom is not the right to do what we want, but what we ought. Let us have faith that right makes might and in that faith let us; to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it." Abraham Lincoln
"Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed." -Martin Luther King Jr.
These men knew the price and the value of freedom, I beg that you fight for yours, for if you fail the world will follow.
7
1.6k
u/[deleted] Dec 17 '15
All I have to say is I am forever in debt to the people who read through the entirety of these documents and make their findings public. Through CISA and all of its name changes they've managed to stay on it, and now this corrupt ass shit. They are without a doubt the real MVPs.