BigBallinStalin wrote: natty dread wrote: BigBallinStalin wrote:
Here's a summary of CISPA:http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... D&summ2=m&
Given that the (1)* bill exempts itself from the Freedom of Information Act, (2)* prevents customers from taking legal action against companies which may wrongfully violate their privacy contract with you, (3) that I highly value transparency of government actions, and that (4) CISPA apparently lends itself to discretionary action due to its ambiguous guidelines (e.g. "cybersecurity or the protection of U.S. national security"), then I view CISPA as unacceptable.
Since CISPA diminishes the people's ability to hold the government and corporations accountable for wrongdoing or abuse, then this act is not just. How can the government know what's best for the people if the government makes its actions in the name of security less visible? Its justifications are the only justifications we can accept due to the lack of transparency. The Act can effectively block any feedback from the people (through the courts).
CISPA seems to only promote security for the state at the expense of the people. How would this act make US citizens any safer?
Obviously it wouldn't make anyone safer. That isn't it's purpose. It's purpose is to try to control the internet, because it threatens the power of those who have it, and those who have it want to keep it.
To play the devil's advocate, this act would enable the government to more effectively enforce copyright laws. People, whose works are stolen (or in reality, duplicated) from cyber piracy, would be operating in an area of decreased security; therefore, in order to make the environment of these producers safer, the government must implement this act.
In this sense, how does CISPA fail to make people safer? It promotes a safer environment of production and exchange!
Ok first of all, copyright laws are already enforced as strictly as is necessary. In fact most copyright laws are way out of control and only benefit huge corporations - how exactly does it benefit the original artist that some corporation gets to have copyrights to thon's work for 70 years after thon's death?
Secondly, there's absolutely no evidence that internet or even piracy in general has caused any losses of profit to copyright holders. There are plenty of independent artists who use the internet as a venue for their works and are able to maintain a profitable business model. And that brings me to my third point...
In the last decade or so, there's been a huge paradigm shift in the way we see entertainment. Earlier, entertainment was produced from a strictly "top-down" model - huge media corporations had ultimate control over what people would consume, and if you didn't like it, tough - there wasn't any alternatives. Internet has changed all that - now anyone can create entertainment and publish it for the whole world to see, entertainment is no longer a one-way street from the producer to the consumers - it's more of a collaborative dialogue between people. And that's of course unacceptable to the media giants, they're going to try everything they can to go back to the old model where they had total control over consumers. Fortunately more and more people see through their bullshit, and claiming back art and entertainment to who it should have belonged all along.
All these attempts to bring stricter copyright enforcement - sopa, cispa, acta etc. - are just attempts to clamp down on entertainment and art and discourage free sharing of ideas. They're not for the "benefit of artists" except superficially - and even if they did benefit artists, that still wouldn't justify restricting the freedom of expression of everyone else.