from the shhh,-keep-this-to-yourself dept.
The scoop: http://www.dailydot.com/politics/bernie-sanders-cisa-senate-2016-presidential-candidates/
It appears the Democratic Socialist and Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders came out against the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISA), a proposed law that has many privacy advocates alarmed.
Background from Wikipedia:
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA H.R. 3523 (112th Congress), H.R. 624 (113th Congress), H.R. 234 (114th Congress)) is a proposed law in the United States which would allow for the sharing of Internet traffic information between the U.S. government and technology and manufacturing companies. The stated aim of the bill is to help the U.S. government investigate cyber threats and ensure the security of networks against cyberattacks.
Privacy advocates and rebels may have a real friend in Senator Bernie Sanders.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by AnonTechie on Wednesday October 14 2015, @11:59AM
I thought that the present president also made many such promises during his campaign speeches ...
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @12:18PM
"if you like your hopey changey, you can keep your hopey changey"
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:00PM
"Hopey Changey"... was he one of the Ooompah Loompah's?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Touché) by cykros on Wednesday October 14 2015, @12:50PM
The present president made such a promise about the NDAA re: indefinite detention of american citizens back in 2011, saying he'd veto it if it made it to his desk. Upon making it to his desk, however, it was promptly signed.
These guys are a lot like JFK...great, until you stop believing all the bullshit. I almost miss the days when we had an evil president who was too ineloquent to hide the fact that he was being a dick. At least everyone had a better idea of what was actually going on.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Francis on Wednesday October 14 2015, @02:50PM
And enough people supported the bullshit that it's probably never going to go back the way it was. W proved that there's enough cowards and turncoats in the US that fixing this stuff is probably not possible shy of a revolution.
Obama has been a revelation in some ways, but his handling of national security and the constitution has been a travesty.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:11PM
And enough people supported the bullshit that it's probably never going to go back the way it was. W proved that there's enough cowards and turncoats in the US that fixing this stuff is probably not possible shy of a revolution.
Yeah, fixing is probably not an option. There are enough people who believe Bush kept them safe from another terrorist attack (although those same people tend now to believe Obama is abetting terrorism although we have the exact same results either way) so they will be fearful of any relaxation of the laws. The time to "fix" theses laws is before they become laws.
Obama has been a revelation in some ways, but his handling of national security and the constitution has been a travesty.
It is hard to find someone who will voluntarily give up power once it is handed to them. Even if they plan to be benevolent in their use of it, it will likely be abused, either by the power holder themselves or by someone under them.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday October 14 2015, @08:02PM
I can't argue with that. I sometimes wonder if Obama would have behaved this way on those issues if the congress hadn't been so hostile to changes.
But, we'll never know and I suspect that once he was elected and saw all the secret shit going on that he didn't want to take any real risks to fix things.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday October 15 2015, @12:27AM
Are you guys whitewashing Obama?
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:12PM
That's true -- ignorantly evil and stupid is better for a leader than cunning and evil, because otherwise we won't know what happened until his body double is found dead and there is a "regime change"!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday October 14 2015, @06:31PM
Sanders, like Hillary, is an Israel-firster. [theintercept.com]
So with either, and especially both, you can expect the aid to keep flowing and the quagmires to keep continuing, maybe even a world-war III. For New Jerusalem!
(Score: 2) by bziman on Thursday October 15 2015, @04:17AM
On the other hand, according to a pro-Sanders site [feelthebern.org], he supports a two-state solution. Not that it's worth replying to an antisemite like Ethanol-fueled. You won't vote for Sanders just because he's ethnically Jewish. It's a shame... he's not nearly as pro-Israel as Clinton.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:13PM
I thought that the present president also made many such promises during his campaign speeches ...
Lucky for us he's a Senator still so we can see how he votes on this very bill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @01:05PM
Chafee is the only one who seemed willing to pardon Snowden.
Unfortunately he got less time to speak than whining Webb.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @02:59PM
I don't pay attention to debates, but it happened to be on the radio when I walked through a room and I heard them asking about Snowden and a couple of other questions. It was so rapid fire that barely anybody had a chance to say anything, although clinton seemed to talk a lot and say nothing.
The one thing I noticed was that Sanders explicitly said that all the good Snowden did for the country by exposing the truth should be taken into account during any trial. Which I took as an acknowledgment that the current law is so hypocritical that Snowden would be unable to get a fair trial.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:11PM
I listened to a radio talk show on the way home from work this morning. Seems the "debate" was carefully choreographed to ask all the questions that Hillary was prepped for. Apparently, she got almost half the talk time, herself. Walton & Johnson make it sound funny, but the cameras were carefully kept off of the lesser-knowns, and focused on Shrillary most of the time, with grudging time given to Sanders and Webb.
Also, apparently (I've not checked the numbers for myself yet) CNN says that Hillary "won" the debate, hands down. But other networks and polls pretty much agree that Sanders won, while some (8% of viewers, according to W&J) say that Webb won.
I really don't have the stomach to actually watch a bunch of progressives competing to see who is most progressive. Especially not when Shrillary gets most of the face time.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Wednesday October 14 2015, @06:56PM
I listened to a radio talk show on the way home from work this morning.
Runaway! We have identified your problem! You need to get bluetooth in your vehicle so you can play music instead of becoming less and less informed on more and more things! Please!
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 14 2015, @08:16PM
It's hard to understand what "progressive" means, but Hillary is definitely a neo-con, and I don't think Sanders is. So in that sense, there were not 5 progressives on stage no matter whether you interpret "progressive" to mean GOP-lite neocons, or liberals.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday October 15 2015, @02:47AM
Hillary is definitely a neo-con
I tend to think of all of these people as the ruling class. Defining whatever type of horse shit they're trying to sell to get into power is not for you, that's for the other Oligarchs to deal with because they're the ones who decides who gets into power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @12:00AM
CNN pulled poll that showed Bernie Sanders winning with ~80%, and there is this:
https://theintercept.com/2015/10/14/cable-news-edits-out-rousing-sanders-attack-on-vapid-media-coverage/ [theintercept.com]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:10PM
That says more about Chafee if he is willing to pardon the indiscriminate dumping of classified data because of some perceived good that came of it while ignoring all the bad that came of it. A guy steals $100,000 from you, but since he gave $100 to a charity, we'll figure him to be a goof fellow and forgive the rest of it. And it says even more of him if he is willing to issue that pardon without knowing the full extent of the ramifications of the data breach. Not the kind of person I'd want running the country.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @04:27PM
It is much better to have a government that is unaccountable for its actions and can violate multiple laws *because it says so*. One reason the world has so many problems that we can't fix is because there are power games going on at the top levels and we (as a society) have bought the repetitive excuse of "national security". Let us destabilize governments we don't like, sometimes in the name of ideology, mostly in the name of profits and power... then because there will undoubtedly be consequences if other countries find out it can be wrapped under national security with a wave of a pen.
Snowden was quite upfront about his whole process. Not only did he try and go through the proper channels and get shut down, but he tried to release information responsibly. I have YET to hear about any crushing revelation that resulted in actual deaths, and I am pretty sure it would have been played up. But please, keep believing the verified liars in charge... Isn't lying to congress a pretty bad crime too? Shouldn't you be upset about that as well?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @04:52PM
What bad came from the Snowden revelations? Be specific and objective please.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday October 14 2015, @08:14PM
People don't trust the government as much.
Of course, whether that's bad or not depends on whether you think an untrustworthy government should be trusted.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Wednesday October 14 2015, @02:03PM
What the fuck is that supposed to mean?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @04:25PM
It refers to the "fight the power" anti-establishment adolescent mindset. If it is popular, I hate it. You have to be "cool" enough to vote Sanders, and clearly you are not cool enough.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @04:57PM
"It refers to the "fight the power" anti-establishment adolescent mindset."
Which is self-apparently much worse than the more mature establishment/criminal "don't rock the boat" mindset?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:44PM
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:16PM
Aren't we supposed to have a "I'm Bernie Sanders and I approve this article" somewhere?
That's just ducky. I'm now looking forward to daily articles on candidate position announcements. Soylent should announce when it will release their official endorsements for candidates.
Just keep in mind that US law says you'll need to add a statement that says who paid for the announcement.
(Score: 4, Informative) by tibman on Wednesday October 14 2015, @03:40PM
Privacy erosion has been a hot topic for ./ and its decedents for as long as i can remember. So you are right to infer some bias/group-think/echo-chamber. If a candidate said they think Microsoft sucks you'd probably see that headline here with a "BREAKING NEWS" thing, lol.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @04:09PM
> I'm now looking forward to daily articles on candidate position announcements.
I do too. I want to know about any position announcement that is topical to the site.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by srobert on Wednesday October 14 2015, @05:46PM
Look at the focus groups and online polls. Google it. Who won last nights debate? Overwhelmingly, the response is Bernie Sanders. MSNBC, CNN, Slate, Salon, Time.com. etc. Now look at the headline articles written by the media (often the same media that conducted the poll), Clinton is declared has having prevailed. CNN's is the worst offender. Their headlines indicate Clinton ruled, while their own online poll shows 81% declared Sanders the winner. Their on-camera focus group declared Sanders won by a large majority. Is that what is meant by "cognitive dissonance"?
This is an example of the old adage "he who pays the piper calls the tune."
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Wednesday October 14 2015, @08:20PM
I listened to the debate. HRC got some decent applause volumes, but it was Sanders who said things that brought down the house. Where's a good applaus-o-meter when you need one?
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Wednesday October 14 2015, @10:48PM
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Thursday October 15 2015, @12:10AM
In the worst possible way the US election has become interesting :D (everybody turn on your sarcasm detectors and watch out for exploding heads!).
It's starting to look like some kind of ploy considering Sanders and Hillary seem to be way too chummy. Wasn't he supposed to be some kind of outsider? He's about as much an outsider as a hot dog in a bun inside a happy dog's belly and the dog's name is Hillary :P
Maybe I'm the only one who has been spooked but I declare a total loss of confidence in Sanders (I'm not a US citizen so it doesn't matter anyway). Can't wait for him to be elected so his voters can listen to four years of excuses. It's a trap! XD
Sanders/Hillary 2016 or will it be Hillary/Sanders? There's your “cognitive dissonance”: it's a nasty mixture of bad cop/good cop, kumabaya love fest, and a lot of kool aid. Someone probably wrote a script for this shit, prepare to be manipulated.
And on the topic of spooked… I guess (hypothetically) it would have to be the Libertarian Party and “Bob” [wikipedia.org] for me. “Bob” (can't resist calling him that, blame “Alice” [wikipedia.org]) is an ex-CIA Occupation Wall Street supporter who realizes the world is rushing down the drain! Damn, wonder if he's a plant or the real thing :o.
At least his thoughts are genuinely challenging [phibetaiota.net] or possibly mind-destroying, not sure.
As for people who can't vote for anything not to the left there's still gewg's option: I couldn't but Jill Stein and the Greens (not a good band name) seem to be legitimate or at least more so than any Democrat.
Let's also “predict” that Trump will have a reverse Dean moment where he makes so much sense to nearly everyone across all political divides that he becomes completely unelectable :D
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 2) by bziman on Thursday October 15 2015, @04:22AM
If you're referring to Sanders saying that we're all sick of hearing about her e-mails, it wasn't him being chummy, it was him doing what he always does - calling it like it is. His point is that we shouldn't worry about a mistake like that, when the obvious major problem with Hillary is her policy positions. And he can make that point while being polite.
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday October 17 2015, @05:47AM
No it's a much more general feeling and impression than that. To what extent does Sanders make something like “a Sanders-inspired/convinced Hillary” acceptable to Sanders supporters, sympathizers, and independents who would never otherwise vote for Hillary? To what extent does Hillary do the same (a “Hillary-modulated/checked Sanders”) for those who would never vote for Sanders, to the big donors, to the party bigwigs? How does all of that work out if they're up against a Trump that will make everybody's head explode at least once? (I expect to hear the collective “djeezus!” of 315+ million Usians loud and clear from across the pond, the stuff so far has been duds, I expect only something amazingly insightful will do it, something just about everybody agrees with but nobody can vote for). Will the Democratic strategies (and I speculate on Hillary/Sanders) close the ranks and leech off of those who can't make themselves vote for his Trumpness? WIll it clinch an absolute electoral college majority? Because that is all that matters to “them” (insert creepy spooky music here) :D
All I'm saying is that I now think the above isn't impossible and might even be likely (and I find that interesting), hence Sanders is no outsider at all and maybe never was in any way.
It's no surprise that someone is working on that and similar stuff or that they already have it all worked out; what needs to happen and when, all the details and contingency meaures. What is a surprise to me (if my feeling on the matter is correct) is that it (call it triangulation if you will) seems to already be quite far along or practically finished and done right from the start/in the first debate.
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 15 2015, @07:24AM
Sanders and Hillary seem to be way too chummy
I don't think it gets mentioned in Lamestream Media[1] but The Bern doesn't do negative campaigning.
He also gets irritated when others do it.
On domestic policy, it seems Bernie is dragging her toward the center (Keystone XL & TPP[2]).
On foreign policy, they are pretty close anyway--both are Hawks.
[1] Hell, from what I hear, Bernie doesn't get mentioned at all in LSM.
[2] Exporting jobs; surrendering national sovereignty.
there's still gewg's option
Clearly, the world would be a better place if everyone voted the way that I do. 8-)
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday October 17 2015, @05:57AM
No I know about that (I mostly read RT for this kind of stuff and they make a big deal out of him). But yes you're right and it's part of the stuff I'm thinking about (see the reply [soylentnews.org] I made to the other reply I got on this).
And yeah don't we all think so :)
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PinkyGigglebrain on Wednesday October 14 2015, @06:25PM
Even if he doesn't get the nomination.
I'll write his name in if I have to.
The only time you "throw your vote away" is if you don't vote.
Because even if its a write in it still gets counted as a vote that the winner (if its not Bernie) didn't get, enough of them and they can't claim "The Mandate of The People" as believably.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 14 2015, @09:02PM
gets counted as a vote that the winner (if [it's] not Bernie) didn't get
There's a way that you can make your vote count that is even more effective: Vote for a 3rd party.
If Progressives such as you can get another party besides the Reds and Blues over the 5 percent threshold, then that additional political party gets federal matching funds in the next election cycle. [google.com]
.
The other day, I responded to another Soylentil [soylentnews.org] who said that, if Bernie doesn't survive the primaries, his alternative vote would go to Green Party candidate Jill Stein.
If you are looking for someone who is much more Progressive, you should check out her stance on the issues. [ontheissues.org]
The only place that Bernie is better is that he has explicitly said that he likes worker-owned cooperatives.
(That site doesn't have a filled-out page for Bernie yet; Jill was a presidential candidate in 2012.)
...and Bernie's Progressive streak is rather narrow, not extending to foreign policy.
His unwavering support of Israel's human rights violations has already been mentioned.
WRT military spending and deployments, he is a reluctant Hawk, but he is still a Hawk.
-- gewg_