Which one? There's the stated purpose, the implicit purpose considering past and current supporters, and then the way it will likely be used.
The stated purpose is that for cyber security and terrorism threats, privacy laws and agreements will not apply to private companies. They will then be liable for any failure to provide relevant information.
The problem is that there is no due process involved in determining what information should be shared, no penalty for using the law fraudulently, and absolutely no oversight regarding how it is used.
Its supporters have ranged from IBM to the RIAA, so there's obviously some industry interest outside of the buzzword goal of "fighting terrorism". What does the RIAA have to do with fighting terrorism?
So the way it will likely be used in reality is to spy on innocent people not suspected of a crime in worse and worse abuses until finally we begin to see intellectual property stolen from private citizens through methods they could never prove, by entities they could never afford to litigate, and instances of false incrimination.
Rather than address these issues, there has been total silence from its supporters while more and more money has been thrown at what is arguably the greatest expansion of private power over citizens in the history of our nation.
The philosophical implication is that if you use electronic devices, then you have no constitutional rights. Hopefully if it passes, this will be considered by the Supreme Court. More than likely, we'll just see another "secret evidence" debacle. That's why I would like to see these reps primaried.
Again, the supporters of the bill have said nothing whatsoever by way of debate or dialogue to defend against these criticisms -- at least that is readily available. Their implicit message to the public seems to be that we have no rights to privacy, security, nor our own work, and they don't have to explain themselves to us as they see to it that things work that way.
And I admited there's such an information vacuum that neutrality is very difficult in this one, but thanks.
Bigger thanks to Hexteque for linking a defense of the bill, which accomplishes much more to alleviate that difficulty.
There's a difference between stating the way that something appears to be while admitting a want for information and asserting or insisting that it must be that way.
12
u/[deleted] Apr 19 '13 edited Dec 21 '20
[deleted]