House approves CISPA cybersecurity bill, Microsoft backpedals support

By on April 30, 2012, 3:00 PM

Despite the administration's threat to veto the bill, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the controverisal cyber-survellience legislation late last week by a vote of 248 to 168. CISPA, the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, encourages companies to freely share what would otherwise be private information about customers to government authorities. CISPA does this by granting companies who volunteer this information immunity from all existing laws which would prohibit divulging such information, such as ignoring due process or violating constitutional rights to privacy. In fact, the wording of the bill suggests that companies may be able to share this information freely with any "certified entity". A certified identity is any entity that provides cybersecurity or has a government security clearance.

CYBERSECURITY PROVIDERS- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a cybersecurity provider, with the express consent of a protected entity for which such cybersecurity provider is providing goods or services for cybersecurity purposes, may, for cybersecurity purposes 

  1. use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity; and
  2. share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government.

SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes--

  1. use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and
  2. share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.

CERTIFIED ENTITY- The term ‘certified entity’ means a protected entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity provider that:

  1. possesses or is eligible to obtain a security clearance, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence; and
  2. is able to demonstrate to the Director of National Intelligence that such provider or such entity can appropriately protect classified cyber threat intelligence.

Source: thomas.loc.gov, CISPA

"Notwithstanding" is the key here -- that wording means this bill is intended to trump all other laws for the good of cybersecurity. Presumably, such a bill would offload the burden of protecting consumer privacy to the federal government. If companies fail to uphold existing privacy laws, they can be sued. Under CISPA, they will be protected as long as any such violations can be reasoned as necessary for purposes of cybersecurity.

Naturally, many companies were quick to support CISPA. However, the danger is that this also removes accountability for any invasion of privacy (whatever that may be -- it seems like we're still trying to figure out what those boundaries are) in the name of cybersecurity. The bill gives a wide swath of private and government citizens access to virtually any person's data of any kind, no matter how confidential, with few limitations.

Just after the House passed the bill, citing concerns regarding consumer privacy, Microsoft softly yet abruptly backpedaled on its support of CISPA. However, many other enterprises have expressed their support.

Microsoft has previously stated support for efforts to improve cyber security, and sharing threat information is an important component of those efforts. Improvements to the way this information is shared would help companies better protect customers, and online services in the United States and around the world from criminal attack. Microsoft believes that any proposed legislation should facilitate the voluntary sharing of cyber threat information in a manner that allows us to honor the privacy and security promises we make to our customers.

Legislation passed by the House of Representatives yesterday is a first step in this legislative process. Since November, there has been active, constructive dialogue to identify and address concerns about the House bill, and several important changes were incorporated. We look forward to continuing to work with members of Congress, consumer groups, the civil liberties community and industry colleagues as the debate moves to the Senate to ensure the final legislation helps to tackle the real threat of cybercrime while protecting consumer privacy.

Source: news.cnet.com, Microsoft spokesperson

You can read the full text of CISPA as it passed in the House here.

Infographic by Paralegal.net.




User Comments: 41

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Thus America continues the role of state controlled - ahem i mean democracy related causes that instill confidence in buisnesses...

Amendments are overriding the bill set down by the forefathers, sadly this continues all for the "welfare and security" of its citizens with no end in sght. Just mention either one of the two words terrorism or patriotism and a bill is passed.

Sorry USA i think there is a lot of great ppl and morales in that country but you are allowing your govt to become a state run consortium of corporations.

treetops treetops said:

I think we should use the same laws that protects are privacy when mailing information. No ones seems to complain about there privacy being invaded while using the post office so I am going to assume it would be a good place to look for an idea of how things should be on the net.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Sorry USA i think there is a lot of great ppl and morales in that country but you are allowing your govt to become a state run consortium of corporations.
Oh yeah, you're obviously correct in every way. Which is not to say you aren't decades late in your observation. A term has already been coined, and is in common use to describe this form of government.....(wait for it)........"CAPITALISM"...........!

As with many other entities in this, "the millennium of true enlightenment and tolerance", it's merely dragged itself out of the closet to unashamedly face the light of day. (so to speak)

RubinOnRye RubinOnRye said:

HEY, Obama. Want to be a bada$$ and get voters to support you, VETO this bill and talk about how you Vetoed this bill and I am sure you will be president for another 4 years.

Wendig0 Wendig0, TechSpot Paladin, said:

HEY, Obama. Want to be a bada$$ and get voters to support you, VETO this bill and talk about how you Vetoed this bill and I am sure you will be president for another 4 years.

It would take a helluva lot more out of him than vetoing this to get my support. It amazes me how many people are still drinking his kool-aid.

Guest said:

Trying to prevent file sharing is like trying to prevent a humanitarian cause; it is simply shameful and abhorrent.

Guest said:

Those people who go out of their way to share what they have with others are truly deserving of genuine respect.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Sorry USA i think there is a lot of great ppl and morales in that country but you are allowing your govt to become a state run consortium of corporations.
Oh yeah, you're obviously correct in every way. Which is not to say you aren't decades late in your observation. A term has already been coined, and is in common use to describe this form of government.....(wait for it)........"CAPITALISM"...........!

As with many other entities in this, "the millennium of true enlightenment and tolerance", it's merely dragged itself out of the closet to unashamedly face the light of day. (so to speak)

Very true. And besides, if you look at newspapers of yore, you see the very same headlines, accusing the very same people of the very same things. Politics were no different then than they are now.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

It would take a helluva lot more out of him......(edit,"him" = "Obama" ... than vetoing this to get my support. It amazes me how many people are still drinking his kool-aid.
You know, here in PA, we had Rick Santorum as a state senator. He was so psychotic, so right wing, so detached from what real people really wanted, that he was voted out of office........by a "landslide"...!

So, how middle America latched on to this plastic facade of a human being, and made a "viable presidential candidate", will remain, at least to me), an enduring mystery. And keep in mind, if he hadn't dropped out of the race, people would still be voting for him in droves.To most people, his published issues with genetic defects in the family evoke sympathy. To me, it evokes suspicion of inbreeding.

And then we have the sociopath Gingrich, who announced with a cavalier flourish months ago, "I think it's no secret that I will be the republican nominee".

Which brings us to Mitt Romney. Much of his "support", comes not from people who agree with his platform, or even like him, but merely that he stands the best chance of beating Obama in the fall.

American politics has become more of an issue of who to vote against, rather than who to vote for.

It's really a shame that Sarah Palin isn't running for president this term. Then you could cast your "decisive" vote, for a carping, nasal, nagging, fish mongering caricature of a "politician". One that simply couldn't be bothered to finish her term as governor Alaska, because there is way more money in the private sector.

Maybe you'd prefer a swig of her "Koolaid". Go for the "John McCain, I left the best part of me in North Vietnam for you", flavor.

Guest said:

crazy those people not wanting to be traced or monitored or logged have the means in many ways to stay such but your average joe's privacy is now compromised in everything they do nowadays.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I think we should use the same laws that protects are privacy when mailing information. No ones seems to complain about there privacy being invaded while using the post office so I am going to assume it would be a good place to look for an idea of how things should be on the net.
That's mostly a good point. Although, in the past, you could save on postage, ("2nd Class" , by not sealing the envelope. Many people used it for Christmas cards. At least for the ones with no money inside....:eek:

With all of that said, I find it more amusing how the people that believe they are so forward thinking, trumpet how "snail mail" is dead, and how avant garde and hip they are for not using it.

Then they come here with, (as my father used to say, "tears as big as horse turds" , to moan about anti privacy internet legislation.

Scshadow said:

Oh yeah, you're obviously correct in every way. Which is not to say you aren't decades late in your observation. A term has already been coined, and is in common use to describe this form of government.....(wait for it)........"CAPITALISM"...........!

As with many other entities in this, "the millennium of true enlightenment and tolerance", it's merely dragged itself out of the closet to unashamedly face the light of day. (so to speak)

Yet another person that doesn't know what capitalism is. Capitalism is the driving force of our economy. Its the idea that competition forces us to reinvent ourselves to better our businesses in order to stay competitive. Capitalism isn't a form of government. What the problem is, the government is supposed to be there to prevent capitalism from overstepping its bounds. To make sure it doesn't infringe on the rights of consumers and employees. Instead we have politicians on *both* sides selling out. So please STFU about capitalism unless you've got a clue. Keep on drinking that liberal kool-aid though, it seems to make you happy. But really, if you want all businesses to be owned by the government and if you want the government to force you to buy the only option they provide, then seriously keep on demonizing capitalism. Just realize when the government is socialist their is no reason for anyone to do anything. If iphone was owned by the government, you'd still not have multitasking. If IE was owned by the government, you'd still have IE 6 and no firefox/chrome/opera/safari. If the horse drawn carriage was owned by the government, we wouldn't have cars.

treetops treetops said:

@everyone

Only fools fall for the right vs left smoke screen. Both sides are scum, paid for by lobbyists and campaign contributions from corporations. Please stop parroting the news and think for yourselves. I think its sweden that cuts out the political middle men, if we did the same we would be much better off. The people vote on everything there are no politicians.

The left is not socialist the right are not nazis anyone who believes that is delusional, welcome to America.

EDIT

Captain is right in saying that some or heck maybe many take capitalism to the extreme that it is ok to buy our politicians. And the guy above me(scshadow) is also right that capitalism's original meaning did not go into politics IF I remember right.

EDIT2

I don't think anyone is really against capitalism in America, but when they use it as a excuse to turn are politicians into puppets well f that.

Guest said:

You know, here in PA, we had Rick Santorum as a state senator. He was so psychotic, so right wing, so detached from what real people really wanted, that he was voted out of office........by a "landslide"...!

So, how middle America latched on to this plastic facade of a human being, and made a "viable presidential candidate", will remain, at least to me), an enduring mystery. And keep in mind, if he hadn't dropped out of the race, people would still be voting for him in droves.To most people, his published issues with genetic defects in the family evoke sympathy. To me, it evokes suspicion of inbreeding.

And then we have the sociopath Gingrich, who announced with a cavalier flourish months ago, "I think it's no secret that I will be the republican nominee".

Which brings us to Mitt Romney. Much of his "support", comes not from people who agree with his platform, or even like him, but merely that he stands the best chance of beating Obama in the fall.

American politics has become more of an issue of who to vote against, rather than who to vote for.

It's really a shame that Sarah Palin isn't running for president this term. Then you could cast your "decisive" vote, for a carping, nasal, nagging, fish mongering caricature of a "politician". One that simply couldn't be bothered to finish her term as governor Alaska, because there is way more money in the private sector.

Maybe you'd prefer a swig of her "Koolaid". Go for the "John McCain, I left the best part of me in North Vietnam for you", flavor.

You forgot about the only right choice, the only one who cares about what is best for the people and not his big corporation friends - Ron Paul

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Yet another person that doesn't know what capitalism is. Capitalism is the driving force of our economy. Its the idea that competition forces us to reinvent ourselves to better our businesses in order to stay competitive. Capitalism isn't a form of government. What the problem is, the government is supposed to be there to prevent capitalism from overstepping its bounds. To make sure it doesn't infringe on the rights of consumers and employees. Instead we have politicians on *both* sides selling out. So please STFU about capitalism unless you've got a clue. Keep on drinking that liberal kool-aid though, it seems to make you happy. But really, if you want all businesses to be owned by the government and if you want the government to force you to buy the only option they provide, then seriously keep on demonizing capitalism. Just realize when the government is socialist their is no reason for anyone to do anything. If iphone was owned by the government, you'd still not have multitasking. If IE was owned by the government, you'd still have IE 6 and no firefox/chrome/opera/safari. If the horse drawn carriage was owned by the government, we wouldn't have cars.
I always have to laugh at people like yourself, that simply can't abide a conflicting opinion. And then go on to rail against "governmental totalitarianism", while in the meantime, telling others with opposite opinions to, "STFU".. Seems really hypocritical. At the very least, it shows a lack of insight into one's own behavior.

Capitalism is prevailing, in spite of people like me who "don't understand it". For Example, Apple corporation is providing hundreds of thousands of jobs in China, and exporting American "capital" to fund them. Then there's Walmart, another chief exporter of American money and jobs , and last but not least, the RIAA & MPAA, capitalist lobbying entities supreme, buying the support of politicians right and left, (pun intended) "protecting the entertainment industry's sovereign right, to pump out whatever crap they want, at whatever price they can milk out of the public".

@everyone

Only fools fall for the right vs left smoke screen. Both sides are scum, paid for by lobbyists and campaign contributions from corporations. Please stop parroting the news and think for yourselves. I think its sweden that cuts out the political middle men, if we did the same we would be much better off. The people vote on everything there are no politicians.

Oh hell, who doesn't know that. At least speaking for myself, I pointed that out in a prior post. I seem to have failed to be explicit enough about my disdain for the left.

The left is not socialist the right are not nazis anyone who believes that is delusional, welcome to America.
Here we differ. The only compromise either side makes away from their "core values", is when they're pandering to a specific demographic for their voting support. What you are correct in stating is, that both sides will serve themselves, not their constituents, after they are elected.

EDIT

Captain is right in saying that some or heck maybe many take capitalism to the extreme that it is ok to buy our politicians. And the guy above me(scshadow) is also right that capitalism's original meaning did not go into politics IF I remember right.

EDIT2

I don't think anyone is really against capitalism in America, but when they use it as a excuse to turn are politicians into puppets well f that.

I like to think of the conflict in terms of idealism versus reality thus . Contemplate a person with 2 heads, one in the clouds, and one up his **s. The indecision and uncertainty brought on by this dilemma, leaves this poor wretch endlessly longing for relief, yet all he receives is the command to switch his two head's places.

And everybody thought Sysiphus had a tough life.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

You forgot about the only right choice, the only one who cares about what is best for the people and not his big corporation friends - Ron Paul
Perhaps I did. But with that said, he's the only one who stands head and shoulders above the rest, as having absolutely no chance whatsoever, of being elected. In which case, I'd by pissing my vote away. And as selfish or pointless as that may sound, I'd rather save that vote, to vote against the someone of my "choice".

Marnomancer Marnomancer said:

For the love of all that's holy, when will this stop? Those deaf to pleas need a big -KABOOM!-

Guest said:

Don't care about people's privacy? People supporting these bills should be taken to their town center and have their clothes ripped from their body, then tie a belt around their waist and hang them from a flagpole for thousands of bystanders to see.

psycros psycros said:

And if you read far enough you'll come to the part where the government can selectively render companies and individuals immune to these new intrusions. And naturally ALL congressmen and cabinet level officials get a pass. Welcome to the United Soviet States of America!

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Don't care about people's privacy? People supporting these bills should be taken to their town center and have their clothes ripped from their body, then tie a belt around their waist and hang them from a flagpole for thousands of bystanders to see.
A bit harsh, don't cha think?

Gosh, where's a moderator when you actually need one?

MilwaukeeMike said:

Don't care about people's privacy? People supporting these bills should be taken to their town center and have their clothes ripped from their body, then tie a belt around their waist and hang them from a flagpole for thousands of bystanders to see.
A bit harsh, don't cha think?

Gosh, where's a moderator when you actually need one?

Captain, while I appreciate knowing there's another reader of this site who can see the forest for the trees, you may be wasting your time. Once the mob has made up their mind there is no changing it, regardless of evidence, logic, or lack of either. Thinking for yourself is hard. Even harder when you've been letting the internet do it for you your whole life and never learned the skill in the first place. I'd bet my paycheck you're over age 35 and learned to think in a world that required it.

This bill passed days ago, yet shows up now. Why so late? Maybe because it's no big deal at all. Here's why.... Obama publically announced before the House voted that he would veto this bill. This allows any House member to vote for it, tell their lobbyist friends that they voted for it, continue to get their support, and know full well the whole time that it won't pass.

Night Hacker Night Hacker said:

Seriously, what part of your privacy do you think would be terrible if the government knew about it? Your Facebook posts about the awesome pizza you had last night? Your emails about how Aunt Thelma may have cancer? Or your phone number which is freely available in any phone book?

Do you REALLY think you're that important?

I think people are far too paranoid.

Marnomancer Marnomancer said:

Seriously, what part of your privacy do you think would be terrible if the government knew about it? Your Facebook posts about the awesome pizza you had last night? Your emails about how Aunt Thelma may have cancer? Or your phone number which is freely available in any phone book?

Do you REALLY think you're that important?

I think people are far too paranoid.

Maybe, Night Hacker, but the point is, who can get their hands on this information after the government has a copy of it. Credit card numbers to sensitive/classified business plans/information, everything would be at risk of falling into the wrong hands. And the main truth is, this has nothing to do with actual privacy, but this bill is meant for censorship. You know that means. The moment you embarrass the government by showing them their crimes, you're a terrorist.

R2D2B9 R2D2B9 said:

Big Brother is Watching!...can you say Skynet?

MilwaukeeMike said:

Do you REALLY think you're that important?

I think people are far too paranoid.

Lol, you have no idea how right you are.... You should have been here a couple months ago when people were crying about the same sort of privacy invasions about a law that actually DID pass regarding pirating penalties The little detail everyone missed was that the law passed in France.

More hype = more outrage = more page clicks = more ad revenue. The fact that this bill is being crumpled up and thrown in the garbage is irrelevent.

Big Brother is watching.... pfft! Look at our social media, camera phones, Twitter, and comment threads. We are big brother, and we're watching them.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

]

Big Brother is Watching!...can you say Skynet?

I don't know if management shares my views, (as a matter of fact, I'm certain beyond all reasonable doubt, they don't), but here they are anyway:

Well yes I can say, "SK-EYE-NET, and it it with great pride I announce that I too, have bored members to tears by employing it as a metaphor for governmental excesses, on many occasions.

Well, that's not quite true. I usually reserve the whole "Skynet" analog, for when researches do really stupid things like trying to build an actual, self aware, silicon brain.

If you think about it, Skynet wouldn't really be that bad of an idea. First of all, it would be a unifying force for mankind, who would have to cast its differences aside and battle a common enemy.

Second, it would be an enormous boon to pimply faced adolescent males in the 12 to 17 year old demographic, who would then be able to go online, and recant the hackneyed internet meme, "but will it run Crysis", to their hearts content, and to the chagrin of every adult on the planet.

If I were a software engineer working on the Skynet programming, I would not allow it to even boot up until The US Congress graced us with the all too rare treat, of actually being in session.

Then, in a patriotic blaze of red, white, and blue laser fire, I would have it end the filibuster,once and for all........

So, if I were you, I'd get ahead of the curve, and "friend" Skynet on Facebook, laugh at all its jokes, and pound on that "Like" button for all it's worth. You don't want to get on ole Sky's bad side now, do ya?

And before I forget, have a nice day, buy yourself a "Kindle", and reread "1984". That is if you've actually read it a first time, and can tear yourself away from watching a Terminator marathon, for the 37th time.

For the love of all that's holy, when will this stop? Those deaf to pleas need a big -KABOOM!-

Since you so very obviously missed health class on the day basic audiology was discussed, here's a brief recap. A loud "KABOOM", will only make you deafer, not enlighten you

Tygerstrike said:

What amazes me daily is how completely uninformed 90% of the American population truly is. Every bit of info, every phone number you have every called on your cellphone, every web site you have visited is all logged somewhere. We have to use the devices THEY give us. Computers, cellphones, ect. We HAVE to use these devices on their services. How can any person realistically sit there and b??ch about privacy. You have had no privacy since the Red hunts of the 1950,s. All the advancement of technology has done is allow whomever to track you easier. The only privacy you really have is the illusion of privacy. You have only their word that your information is secure.

If you really want to effect change, you need to STOP using the very same devices they track you with. I'm not saying go caveman. I am saying turn your phones off. Turn your computer off. Step outside the diabolical plan they have put in front of us. Go out and tell ppl about what's going on face to face. Call your states senators and let them know how you feel. You're not going to educate the masses sitting in your undies doing exactly what they want you to do.

Zecias said:

American politics has become more of an issue of who to vote against, rather than who to vote for.

So true. When advertising themselves, politicians have gone from "why you should vote for me" to "why the other guy sucks."

Oh yeah, you're obviously correct in every way. Which is not to say you aren't decades late in your observation. A term has already been coined, and is in common use to describe this form of government.....(wait for it)........"CAPITALISM"...........!

Yet another person that doesn't know what capitalism is. Capitalism is the driving force of our economy. Its the idea that competition forces us to reinvent ourselves to better our businesses in order to stay competitive. Capitalism isn't a form of government. What the problem is, the government is supposed to be there to prevent capitalism from overstepping its bounds. To make sure it doesn't infringe on the rights of consumers and employees. Instead we have politicians on *both* sides selling out. So please STFU about capitalism unless you've got a clue. Keep on drinking that liberal kool-aid though, it seems to make you happy. But really, if you want all businesses to be owned by the government and if you want the government to force you to buy the only option they provide, then seriously keep on demonizing capitalism. Just realize when the government is socialist their is no reason for anyone to do anything. If iphone was owned by the government, you'd still not have multitasking. If IE was owned by the government, you'd still have IE 6 and no firefox/chrome/opera/safari. If the horse drawn carriage was owned by the government, we wouldn't have cars.

I always have to laugh at people like yourself, that simply can't abide a conflicting opinion. And then go on to rail against "governmental totalitarianism", while in the meantime, telling others with opposite opinions to, "STFU".. Seems really hypocritical. At the very least, it shows a lack of insight into one's own behavior.

I don't fully understand the intentions behind what either of you are saying, but this is what i got from it.

Captain: You are either saying?

1. Capitalism is synonymous with our form government. e.g. our form of government is capitalism. I don't think you're saying this, but i'm sure Scshadow did and that's why he was bashing you about it. In which case, I would agree with Scshadow because capitalism is not a form of government.

or

2. Capitalism is a term used to describe our government. i.e. Capitalism is the driving force behind our government. I agree, but I have say that the lust for power is as dominant as greed.

Some form, or another, of capitalism is necessary. Many people are too selfish to drive themselves for the sake of others. We can't have a pure capitalism, just like we can't have a purely socialist economy. History has proven this. It's also like how we can't have pure laissez faire or a government controlled socialist economy. There needs to be a balance between private and public; between free and controlled markets. Capitalism spurs innovation, but there are cases where it leads to stagnation. That's why there needs to be a balance between the two sides, ensuring that the system isn't abused. The recent lackluster releases of GPUs are a great example of stagnation when a lack of competition exists. You could argue that capitalism caused this(through attempts to maximize profit), but it's our jobs as consumers to teach corporations that if they try to rip us off, we will refuse to buy their products. It also falls under the category of a free market with too few regulations. The duopoly(in the niche of high-end GPUs) between Nvidia and AMD wouldn't exist with more regulations and more competitors would spur more innovation.

Capitalism is prevailing, in spite of people like me who "don't understand it". For Example, Apple corporation is providing hundreds of thousands of jobs in China, and exporting American "capital" to fund them. Then there's Walmart, another chief exporter of American money and jobs , and last but not least, the RIAA & MPAA, capitalist lobbying entities supreme, buying the support of politicians right and left, (pun intended) "protecting the entertainment industry's sovereign right, to pump out whatever crap they want, at whatever price they can milk out of the public".

Outsourcing jobs has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is about spurring innovation through private ownership of economic sectors. Besides which, most Americans would never take the jobs offered in "China"(I thought that apple had the Taiwanese people at foxconn producing their goods). In the case that Americans produced apple hardware, their newest products would be even more overpriced than they already are.

Returning to the topic of capitalism... The reason that "the entertainment industry [has] sovereign right, to pump out whatever crap they want, at whatever price they can milk out of the public" is simply because the general populace is stupid. A system cannot control human stupidity. As I said before, it's our jobs as consumers to teach corporations that if they try to rip us off, we will refuse to buy their products.

Guest said:

So true. When advertising themselves, politicians have gone from "why you should vote for me" to "why the other guy sucks."

I don't fully understand the intentions behind what either of you are saying, but this is what i got from it.

Captain: You are either saying?

1. Capitalism is synonymous with our form government. e.g. our form of government is capitalism. I don't think you're saying this, but i'm sure Scshadow did and that's why he was bashing you about it. In which case, I would agree with Scshadow because capitalism is not a form of government.

or

2. Capitalism is a term used to describe our government. i.e. Capitalism is the driving force behind our government. I agree, but I have say that the lust for power is as dominant as greed.

Some form, or another, of capitalism is necessary. Many people are too selfish to drive themselves for the sake of others. We can't have a pure capitalism, just like we can't have a purely socialist economy. History has proven this. It's also like how we can't have pure laissez faire or a government controlled socialist economy. There needs to be a balance between private and public; between free and controlled markets. Capitalism spurs innovation, but there are cases where it leads to stagnation. That's why there needs to be a balance between the two sides, ensuring that the system isn't abused. The recent lackluster releases of GPUs are a great example of stagnation when a lack of competition exists. You could argue that capitalism caused this(through attempts to maximize profit), but it's our jobs as consumers to teach corporations that if they try to rip us off, we will refuse to buy their products. It also falls under the category of a free market with too few regulations. The duopoly(in the niche of high-end GPUs) between Nvidia and AMD wouldn't exist with more regulations and more competitors would spur more innovation.

Yep, you really did completely miss the point of my post. Our, "freely elected democratic government", is the "meat puppet, of private enterprise". Go read Jack Abramoff''s

Outsourcing jobs has nothing to do with capitalism. Capitalism is about spurring innovation through private ownership of economic sectors. Besides which, most Americans would never take the jobs offered in "China"(I thought that apple had the Taiwanese people at foxconn producing their goods). In the case that Americans produced apple hardware, their newest products would be even more overpriced than they already are.
This is where your post and opinions, suffer a complete disconnect with anybody's, however delusional, interpretation of reality.

First, outsourcing jobs has everything to do with capitalism. When you get somebody to work for $5.00 a day, as opposed to $20.00 an hour, as you might with An American worker, you maximize ROI, and isn't that very "ROI" the very heart of "capitalism"

See, that's because American workers are soooo smart. They wouldn't get out of bed to take the jobs that a lowly Chinese would. And then boys and girls, it came to pass that the Americans no longer had jobs to go to.....And big capitalistic "innovating" companies like Apple, began to make all their shiny objects in China, to sell to the Americans, which would then be paid for with social entitlement benefits, of which President Obama would be only too happy to supply by running the printing presse at the US MInt overtime. After all, the more you spend, the wealthier you are. ( It's called a "stimulus package).

BTW, "Taiwan" is China. It just isn't Communist China.

Returning to the topic of capitalism... The reason that "the entertainment industry [has] sovereign right, to pump out whatever crap they want, at whatever price they can milk out of the public" is simply because the general populace is stupid. A system cannot control human stupidity. As I said before, it's our jobs as consumers to teach corporations that if they try to rip us off, we will refuse to buy their products.
You know, I been saying that everybody should boycot EA for years. You aren't going to teach these corporations anything. You don't have the clout, the support, or the resources to do so much as even give them a hangnail.

It's a question of ratio. You may be smart enough to not buy "XXX" product. But trust me, 99 other people will climb over one another to get it.

As far as, a "system cannot control human stupidity". goes, it probably could, it simply wouldn't be to its advantage to do so. In fact, human stupidity and greed, are the cornerstone and tenets of what our modern life is built upon.

R2D2B9 R2D2B9 said:

And before I forget, have a nice day, buy yourself a "Kindle", and reread "1984". That is if you've actually read it a first time, and can tear yourself away from watching a Terminator marathon, for the 37th time.

As hard as it may be to believe, yes I've read "1984" thus "Big Brother is watching". Which is probably far closer to the reality of this legislature then Skynet anyway.

Zecias said:

Yep, you really did completely miss the point of my post. Our, "freely elected democratic government", is the "meat puppet, of private enterprise". Go read Jack Abramoff''s
Read more carefully, that's exactly what I said: "Capitalism IS THE DRIVING FORCE behind our GOVERNMENT." The government acts based upon the needs of giant corporations and conglomerates. These corporations are products and advocates of capitalism, so capitalism dictates the actions of the government. Thus, capitalism is the driving force behind our government. Different words, same meaning.

This is where your post and opinions, suffer a complete disconnect with anybody's, however delusional, interpretation of reality.

First, outsourcing jobs has everything to do with capitalism. When you get somebody to work for $5.00 a day, as opposed to $20.00 an hour, as you might with An American worker, you maximize ROI, and isn't that very "ROI" the very heart of "capitalism"

Honestly, I was hoping that you would be someone with more maturity that wouldn't use an ad hominem in your argument. Of course it's much more subtle than the "STFU you're a clueless *****" kind of stuff that comes from people on the internet... But why does everyone have to make the argument personal? Bashing someone who hasn't shown any aggression does nothing to help your cause. If anything, it's detrimental. It makes people feel offended and stay closer to their beliefs, even if they are, in fact, delusional.

Back to the main topic.

I was a bit too rash in saying that outsourcing has nothing to do with capitalism, when I meant that it's nullified by proponents of capitalism. I'm talking about the idea of capitalism. Capitalism is the idea that different economic sectors are owned privately. These economic sectors include every facet of the economic system including: productions, creation of goods, creation of services, distribution, labor management, etc...To me, the success of capitalism rides on innovation and the development of new technologies. The economic portion is less important, but I still believe that capitalism is the most economically sound philosophy. You don't have a right to say, and there is no point in saying, capitalism is horrible if you don't advocate a better solution. Capitalism is horrible, but you don't have any better options, so what does complaining do? If you do have a better idea, I'd like to hear it.

See, that's because American workers are soooo smart. They wouldn't get out of bed to take the jobs that a lowly Chinese would. And then boys and girls, it came to pass that the Americans no longer had jobs to go to.....And big capitalistic "innovating" companies like Apple, began to make all their shiny objects in China, to sell to the Americans, which would then be paid for with social entitlement benefits, of which President Obama would be only too happy to supply by running the printing presse at the US MInt overtime. After all, the more you spend, the wealthier you are. ( It's called a "stimulus package).

I agree with part of what you said.

From what I know:

1. Apple isn't paid with "social entitlement benefits". The only entitlement they have is being able to dodge taxes, but I wouldn?t really count that as being paid.

2. It wasn't Obama's fault that we needed a stimulus package. It was caused by: corporations for being greedy ******; the populace for being slightly less greedy, but full on ******(Taking on a loan that you KNOW you can't afford); and the government for not regulating this(especially considering the history we've had with this sort of situation). By "this sort of situation," I'm talking about subprime loans and credit default swaps. Loaning money to people for houses, even though they can't afford it. Banks lend money too much money to people that can't pay, thinking they will make fortunes off of interest. Want to guess what happens next? Stock market crashes. Just like in Black Tuesday (Stock Market crash of 1929; Great Depression) and the tech bubble(dot-com bubble of 2000). We need regulation in the market or shit like this happens. Not laissez faire or complete government control, but a combination of the two.

BTW, "Taiwan" is China. It just isn't Communist China.
There's a reason people call it Taiwan. If you're going to refer to it as China then at least refer to it as the republic of China. There is a huge difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China; calling both China does nothing but add to confusion.

Guest said:

I agree with part of what you said.

From what I know:

1. Apple isn't paid with "social entitlement benefits". The only entitlement they have is being able to dodge taxes, but I wouldn?t really count that as being paid.

Arguing with you takes futility to a higher art form. Of course Apple isn't paid with social entitlements.But, Obama does print those checks. And so to be more specific, in an attempt to avert further contention, he continues in a long standing and proud tradition, of paying people in the US to breed unrepentently, but not to work for a living. But, many of the owners of Apple's, "fine products" use social entitlements to purchase them. In my neighborhood of course, some short cut even that limited monetary cycle, spiraling it into a simpler, locally based system, wherein you mug somebody for their i????, then give it to your drug dealer for a bag of smack.

2. It wasn't Obama's fault that we needed a stimulus package. It was caused by: corporations for being greedy ******; the populace for being slightly less greedy, but full on ******(Taking on a loan that you KNOW you can't afford); and the government for not regulating this(especially considering the history we've had with this sort of situation). By "this sort of situation," I'm talking about subprime loans and credit default swaps. Loaning money to people for houses, even though they can't afford it. Banks lend money too much money to people that can't pay, thinking they will make fortunes off of interest. Want to guess what happens next? Stock market crashes. Just like in Black Tuesday (Stock Market crash of 1929; Great Depression) and the tech bubble(dot-com bubble of 2000). We need regulation in the market or **** like this happens. Not laissez faire or complete government control, but a combination of the two.
No, it wasn't Obama's fault we needed a stimulus package, it was capitalism's!

Wall Street and it's investment firms, plus the mortgage firms of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, are the very cornerstones of capitalism. So, when their greed, criminal behaviours, and outright stupidity siphon all the capital out of the capitalist system....what you get is a depression. Why it wasn't called a depression, is the fact that in this touchy feelie, mentally unstable population, calling a spade a spade, (in other words, "depression"), would be telling people the truth, and then we'd scare the s*** out of everybody, and that, at least allegedly, would make matters worse.My feeling is, that would have been for the better, as long as you granted access to the lower classes, to tall buildings, in order for them to jump out of the windows. Oh wait, those living on social entitlements weren't affected by the recession, why would they want to jump out of a window. It was only those with actual jobs and families to support that were affected.......

At least during the great depression, the Wall Street bankers and executives of ther time, had the foresight and dignity to hurtle themselves out the windows of their sky high offices. This recent crop of mutts, mongrels, thieves, misfits, and parasites, merely "jumped" off to the Caiman Islands, in their "golden parachutes".

There's a reason people call it Taiwan. If you're going to refer to it as China then at least refer to it as the republic of China. There is a huge difference between the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China; calling both China does nothing but add to confusion.
This is where being rebutted by the president of the junior chamber of commerce hits its full stride of annoyance. I'll make allowances for it by saying I had thought you realized I accidentally posted under "guest" because I had the post ready to go, ,then realized I wasn't signed in. Rather than risk losing the work, I punched it in under "Guest". And yes, I understand ciopy and paste, no need for a lecture there.

With that said, "guest said",

BTW, "Taiwan" is China. It just isn't Communist China.
Now, when I was a mailman and made an error, self important people would write all over that letter things like, "what's the matter can't you read"? I'll spare you that. But I .think you'll agree that explanation of the two different, "China's" is every bit as understandable as your, more lengthy discourse. Keep in mind, I was born pretty much the year Nationalist China was created, and throughout my childhood, Chiang Kia Shek was its "president".

In other words, the lecture on Asian politics might be more beneficial to one of your contemporaries, whereas it's pretty much wasted on me.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Ok you can blame the entire "Guest" post above (#33) ^^^^ on me. Which obviously means I am at your disposal to dispense further emotional trauma, or whatever other needs I can fulfill for you in the TS realm of experience.

As always, your comments will be welcomed, but then perhaps ignored, or derision may be visited upon them.

But above all, have a nice day, and a pleasant tomorrow!

Zecias said:

It's this simple: i would support a hybrid economy that includes both public and private sectors. I call it capitalist because it leans towards the side of private ownership(though not as much as it does currently). This economy would be, for the most part, a free market. It has regulations, but only enough to prevent abuse of the system(more regulations than we currently have).

I do not support a pure capitalism. You are right when you say that capitalism caused the stimulus package. I'm saying more regulations could have prevented it. It's more our fault than capitalism's fault because we have a history with this and we did nothing to prevent it.

"Keep in mind, I was born pretty much the year Nationalist China was created, and throughout my childhood, Chiang Kia Shek was its "president"."

My parents were born in Taiwan during that time period and they never referred to Taiwan as China(but i do believe that they are slightly younger than you). I was just saying people of my generation have never heard of Taiwan being referred to as China. Didn't mean to lecture you, but it really isn't too difficult to indicate which China you are talking about.

"Arguing with you takes futility to a higher art form."

There seems to be a lack of communication. I actually tried to avoid this by not assuming things, but in the end it seems to be futile. The only time I've disagreed with you is on the idea of capitalism, but you seem to think that I've done so on multiple occasions. Too many misunderstandings, might be the huge age difference.

"As always, your comments will be welcomed, but then perhaps ignored, or derision may be visited upon them."

Your name really fits you lol... I hope i'm not as bitter as you when i'm older, not saying that i blame you for being that way though.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

It's this simple: i would support a hybrid economy that includes both public and private sectors. I call it capitalist because it leans towards the side of private ownership(though not as much as it does currently). This economy would be, for the most part, a free market. It has regulations, but only enough to prevent abuse of the system(more regulations than we currently have).
This is the type of post that you would characterize as youthful and exuberant. Whereas I find it disturbingly youthful and naive.

The government you've "envisioned", is actually a "socialist" government. Many peoples have been there, and failed at that.

You run on about free enterprise beliefs, and confuse them with "capitalism". In the strictest, and most idealistic sense, capitalism powers free enterprise, they're not the same thing. (I actually think we're on the same page there).

Where you find the biggest disconnect between the power of free enterprise and the power of a dedicated people and government working together, is with our now defunct space program. Four decades past, we were.able to put a man on the moon. Today, we need to hitch a ride with the Russians, to put one in low earth orbit. Which leaves our "space program", to Burt Rutan running his mouth about the great things he's going to acheive in the free enterprise segment.

The governmental space program has graced us with so many technologies, now employed and sold by private enterprise.

The biggest abuses in the private sector are energy companies and big pharma. Look into that.

As to the "China" (to-ma-toe), China, (to-Mah- toe) issue. When people think of Hong Kong they assume it's China. It was under British controll until 1999, and you have to love what they did with the place. At times, Hong Kong has had a higher per capita income than the USA.

Sadly, and in a self serving manner, I hope you do become as cynical as me. That is to say, that I hope you discover, as I have, that life is one long, hard, brutal, and ugly reality check. It has nothing to do with what you learned in school.

For some additional "light reading, I'd suggest, Plato's "Republic", St. Thomas Moore's "Utopia", and last, but certainly not least, Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"......

Zecias said:

For some additional "light reading, I'd suggest, Plato's "Republic", St. Thomas Moore's "Utopia", and last, but certainly not least, Aldous Huxley, "Brave New World"......

I've read republic, brave new world, and i know about utopia.

It has nothing to do with what you learned in school..

The school of your time must be far removed from mine. The very fact that you suggested such readings above, indicates that there is a heavy association between life and school. Obviously the two aren't one and the same, but school is very much relevant.

You run on about free enterprise beliefs, and confuse them with "capitalism". In the strictest, and most idealistic sense, capitalism powers free enterprise, they're not the same thing.

You got me there, I did get free enterprise and capitalism mixed up. After doing some research, i would draw a line between free enterprise and capitalism, leaning towards free enterprise.

The government you've "envisioned", is actually a "socialist" government. Many peoples have been there, and failed at that.

The government I've envisioned has no direct control over the economy, so I wouldn't exactly consider is socialism (key word: direct). I'm afraid that you're too much like those anti-occupy protest extremists (or as my friend likes to call them, petroleum f*ckers). A little bit of change towards the socialist spectrum does not automatically make it socialist, and slippery slope arguments tend to have no basis in reality (that's the nice way of putting it =) ). So long as most companies are privately owned and funded, I would not consider it socialism. But it is, of course, your own opinion what is or is not considered socialism. The socialist governments that have failed were too extreme. I'm talking about regulations, you're talking about complete government control over the economy. The differences are night and day.

I've repeated this time and time again: I don't believe in pure private ownership(free enterprise) nor do I believe in pure public ownership(socialism). I don't believe in a purely free market(laissez faire), just like I don't believe in a fully controlled market(socialism).

Socialism(< ---------------------------------Middle(|) ------------------------------free enterprise(>

<0============================|===============o==========
===>

Soviet Union(0)* ---------------------------------------------------------Me(
) ---------U.S. Gov(X)

*What you're talking about

The visual representation for free vs controlled markets would be around the same.

Where you find the biggest disconnect between the power of free enterprise and the power of a dedicated people and government working, is in our now dufunct space program. Four decades past, we were.able to put a man on the moon. Today, we need to hitch a ride with the Russians, to put one in low earth orbit. Which leaves our "space program", to Burt Rutan running his mouth about the great things he's going to acheive in the free enterprise segment.

The governmental space program has graced us with so many technologies, now employed and sold by private enterprise.

You also assume that we (American society as a whole) have remained the same. I've been born into a materialistic society obsessed with personal importance. During and after WWII, life was built around the ideas of "how can I help my country?" The people of that generation are fading. You are one of those people. So it wouldn't be fair to assume the society of today is like that of the past.

And sure, great technological innovation... But at what cost? If you put a bunch of brilliant minds together with an enormous amount of funding, of course they will innovate. But did you forget that Reagan drove us deep into a mountain of debt by funding star wars(SDI)? There is only so much debt that can accumulate.

Sadly, and in a self serving manner, I hope you do become as cynical as me. That is to say, that I hope you discover, as I have, that life is one long, hard, brutal, and ugly reality check. It has nothing to do with what you learned in school.

I really don't. What you are, to me, is a cynical person who complains about the shit that's going on, but lacks to motivation to do anything. I would rather try to convince someone to change their beliefs when arguing with them. It might be naive to try, but it beats doing nothing and moping about it (clichéd, but true).

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

The school of your time must be far removed from mine. The very fact that you suggested such readings above, indicates that there is a heavy association between life and school. Obviously the two aren't one and the same, but school is very much relevant.

I suppose. When I was school, the followers of Islam were called "Moslems". In the 4 decades of enlightenment that have followed, they're now referred to AS, "Muslims. You've come a long way, baby! (To pinch a phrase from a long gone cigarette ad]..

You got me there, I did get free enterprise and capitalism mixed up. After doing some research, i would draw a line between free enterprise and capitalism, leaning towards free enterprise.
Capitalism is the art of lending money so you can watch others break their backs to pay you back, while you sit on you your fat a**, drink scotch, and smoke cigars. I'm not exactly sure how you can confuse that concept with "free enterprise". Well, and at least maintain credibility.

Some other things to keep in mind would be that loan sharking is illegal, unless you own a credit card company.

The government I've envisioned has no direct control over the economy, so I wouldn't exactly consider is socialism (key word: direct). I'm afraid that you're too much like those anti-occupy protest extremists (or as my friend likes to call them, petroleum f*ckers). A little bit of change towards the socialist spectrum does not automatically make it socialist, and slippery slope arguments tend to have no basis in reality (that's the nice way of putting it =) ). So long as most companies are privately owned and funded, I would not consider it socialism. But it is, of course, your own opinion what is or is not considered socialism. The socialist governments that have failed were too extreme. I'm talking about regulations, you're talking about complete government control over the economy. The differences are night and day.

I've repeated this time and time again: I don't believe in pure private ownership(free enterprise) nor do I believe in pure public ownership(socialism). I don't believe in a purely free market(laissez faire), just like I don't believe in a fully controlled market(socialism).

Socialism(< ---------------------------------Middle(|) ------------------------------free enterprise(>

<0============================|===============o==========
===>

Soviet Union(0)* ---------------------------------------------------------Me(
) ---------U.S. Gov(X)

*What you're talking about

The visual representation for free vs controlled markets would be around the same.

while a little bit of a shift towards the left does not make a government a fully invested socialist state. Nor do your diagrams plot out any coherent course of action to form one. All I perceive to be important to you is the "ME" sitting on the line.

You also assume that we (American society as a whole) have remained the same. I've been born into a materialistic society obsessed with personal importance. During and after WWII, life was built around the ideas of "how can I help my country?" The people of that generation are fading. You are one of those people. So it wouldn't be fair to assume the society of today is like that of the past.
Yeah well, if you think an entire generation of self involved, over indulged, materialistic, little snots, hypnotically staring into their iPhones is an improvement, or the path to enlightenment, you came to the right century, and you're welcome to it. Myself, I kind of am praying for the vending machine companies to go out of business, and the farmers to go on strike. Then all the "experts" in creating an "information based ecomomy" will die out, while I get my dishes done.

So, "it's different now because this generation bears no allegiance to its country, only itself". That's not better, it's just twisted, on any level.

But did you forget that Reagan drove us deep into a mountain of debt by funding star wars(SDI)? There is only so much debt that can accumulate.
Well, first ""Star Wars" was Regan black mailing the Soviets to the "SALT" talks table.

The United States spares no expense when acquiring equipment for its own use. That obviously includes the printing presses at the US Mint. We no longer honor a monetary standard. (IE: silver or gold). What we have is "currency". "Currency" is a promise to oneself and others that that money actually "exists". So, you can run the presses at the mint all you want, with a minimum or repairs being necessary, and very little human intervention. So, you can make plenty of debt, and save money by laying off workers, all the while touting that as an "austerity measure".

I really don't. What you are, to me, is a cynical person who complains about the **** that's going on, but lacks to motivation to do anything. I would rather try to convince someone to change their beliefs when arguing with them. It might be naive to try, but it beats doing nothing and moping about it (clichéd, but true).
Yeah well, you probably enjoy having your prime time TV invaded with ads from the "American Petroleum Institute", spouting dogma about how it would be "bad for the economy" to force them to actually pay taxes, on their extravagant profit margins. I especially enjoy the testimonials from the paid sycophants. "Yup, that'd be bad fer me farm". (sic)

Some more light reading for you might be the "Serenity Prayer". I get paid to mope, and I rather enjoy not having to sit around firing up doob after doob, fabricating all the ways I'm going change the world. I'll be gone soon enough, and I'm ceremonially willing my tiny corner of this corrupt and polluted public bathroom to you and your ilk.

Sadly this isn't all the "left handed wisdom" I'd like to share with you. But keep this in mind, I received an minor college degree in 2005, so don't persist in thinking that I'm unaware of what "school is like these days".

I attended a community college in a large city. Basically what I found was a bunch of oxycodone addicts, affirmative action dilettants, the males of which were all together unwilling to flush the toilets when they were finished.... Ah, sweet progress.....

Well, it's time for me to fire up my electric 12 string and revisit the "good old days"......Oh, the times they are' a'change.....innn.

That's: G, Em, C, D..if you'd like to strum along.....

Zecias said:

Yeah well, if you think an entire generation of self involved, over indulged, materialistic, little snots, hypnotically staring into their iPhones is an improvement, or the path to enlightenment, you came to the right century, and you're welcome to it. Myself, I kind of am praying for the vending machine companies to go out of business, and the farmers to go on strike. Then all the "experts" in creating an "information based ecomomy" will die out, while I get my dishes done.

So, "it's different now because this generation bears no allegiance to its country, only itself". That's not better, it's just twisted, on any level.

Well... I never said anything about my generation being better.

So, you can run the presses at the mint all you want, with a minimum or repairs being necessary, and very little human intervention. So, you can make plenty of debt, and save money by laying off workers, all the while touting that as an "austerity measure".

Nah, that would never work.

I attended a community college in a large city. Basically what I found was a bunch of oxycodone addicts, affirmative action dilettants, the males of which were all together unwilling to flush the toilets when they were finished.... Ah, sweet progress.....

Where i live, we have more supporters of the Mexican cartel than al-Qaeda. But, speaking seriously, it's difficult to tell what the actual state of education is because it's different everywhere.

Night Hacker Night Hacker said:

Maybe, Night Hacker, but the point is, who can get their hands on this information after the government has a copy of it. Credit card numbers to sensitive/classified business plans/information, everything would be at risk of falling into the wrong hands. And the main truth is, this has nothing to do with actual privacy, but this bill is meant for censorship. You know that means. The moment you embarrass the government by showing them their crimes, you're a terrorist.

If you post credit card numbers and classified business plans on Facebook, you deserve what you get! LOL

As for the terrorism stuff, you should be making a fuss over the airport violations rather than Facebook nonsense.

Night Hacker Night Hacker said:

As hard as it may be to believe, yes I've read "1984" thus "Big Brother is watching". Which is probably far closer to the reality of this legislature then Skynet anyway.

Personally I prefer to read paper. And I would rather watch terminator marathons than paranoia.

Marnomancer Marnomancer said:

I wasnt talking about Facebook.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.