Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Senate Passes Security Law Infringing on Privacy Rights... Welcome to Orwell's 1984

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth


Under the vague guise of “cybersecurity”, the Senate voted on Tuesday to pass the Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act (Cisa), a spying bill that essentially carves a giant hole in all our privacy laws and allows tech and telecom companies to hand over all sorts of private information to intelligence agencies without any court process whatsoever. Make no mistake: Congress has passed a surveillance bill in disguise, with no evidence it’ll help our security.


I am reminded of a well known quote attributable to Benjamin Franklin. One which in light of thus development every American ought to commit to memory and recite to themselves daily.

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.”

The senate has, without a second thought or concern to or for individual privacy rights has just traded the privacy and liberty of all Americans for the government's tyrannical belief it has the right to indiscriminately spy on us all for some alleged yet unproven gain to national security.

Welcome to 1984 and Big Brother is Watching You. Lenin and Stalin must be smiling.

Full article BELOW THE FOLD.


17 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. A republican senate passed it. I hold them, as well ss any dem who voted for it most responsible for their ignorance.

      I'm more interested in your position Lisa than I am if Obama signs it. He most definitely should not. What do you think?

      Delete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am against it because I believe mostly it will be used politically

      Delete
  3. Les, you do not have a right to privacy of communication via a third disinterested commercial party, commercial or public line. The "right to privacy" itself is only an implication of other rights. CONGRESS can set rules of government that would address this issue. But only a constitutional amendment will secure the matter for the future.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This a stupid bill.

      I do not have a right to your personal and private info. Unless you authorize it. The government does not have a right unless it had probable cause to suspepect criminal behavior and activity. In
      which case it can secure a warrant.

      We disagree and it is extremely likely we will continue to do so on this.

      Delete
  4. I guess the men and women who sell children into sexual slavery over the dark web have rights too...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Read my comment with respect to criminal activity and search warrant. Then get back to me. Or better yet, find a police state you might be comfortable in. Perhaps North Korea?

      Delete
    2. Lauren,
      If you believe that giving the police and government access to all YOUR personal information and communications will help catch men and women who sell children into slavery on the Internet, then go right ahead and authorize it for YOURSELF.

      Delete
    3. I have nothing to hide so privacy isn't an issue for me. As for the need for search warrants for criminal activity, how exactly does one execute a warrant for someone named "anonymous"? Criminals aren't that stupid, our laws need to evolve so that Mr and Mrs Anonymous can be found and to do that, we all need to give a little privacy in order to help, it's called being a good citizen, if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.

      Delete
    4. Spoken like a true big government advocate. Of course living in Canada you are comfortable with the government abridging your civil rights and privacy I suppose.

      Delete
    5. Privacy is not about hiding things.

      It government has access to information, others will be able to access it also, albeit it illegally.

      Delete
  5. JC

    They have it now and it is called the IRS. The dept of homeland security was the first step in total government intervention without control, this just expands their authority.

    1984 is coming a little late but it is coming. You believe in government control over every aspect of our lives, why do you object to this?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bernie Sanders voted Nay. Of the 21 Nay votes for this Republican sponsored bill (Richard Burr of NC), 6 are Republican and 14 are Democratic.

    Cruz, Graham, Paul and Rubio did not vote (due to them being at the 3rd Repub debate, I presume).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bernie and the other dems are right on this issue. Hands down, while the police state minded repub neo cons are flat out wrong on this one.

      Delete
  7. Les, I don't know what you think we're agreeing or disagreeing about, but what I said is factual, not opinion. I don't like any of this either. But the law is on the side of police-statists on this one.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The bill should NOT have passed IMO. Many, many other true liberty minded folk agree. Had the bill not have passed it would not be law now would it Jersey?

      The point is another wedge has been driven into our privacy rights and it will diminish our civil liberties.

      As Big Brother grows larger and looms over us even more. I'm pretty sure a lot of the neo cons and the rightwing reactionaries are loving it.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.