Comments: 73 • Responses: 13 • Date: 2015-10-26 16:57:03 UTCsource
justscottaustin24 karma2015-10-26 17:13:48 UTC
Are you familiar with over-exposure?
This reminds me a lot of Austin awhile ago.
Light rail! Defeat Light Rail!
Light rail! Shut up.
Light rail! Jesus Christ. Stop with the Light Rail bullshit.
Light rail passes in Austin after a 7 year battle!!
CISA is a bit like that. The tipping point comes when those of us who know about it, understand it and revile certain points of it get sick of fucking hearing about it. Our interest fades, and we don't "sign," the petitions anymore. We don't contact people. The RHM doesn't go crazy. The media doesn't cover it. We're sick and tired of it.
So it passes.
There should be laws passed saying something like "once a bill is defeated, no bill substantially the same as the defeated one can be introduced for X years."
View HistoryShare Link
fightforthefuture16 karma2015-10-26 17:18:15 UTC
You're totally right. They want us to get sick and tired of taking action. In the last 24 hours, we really can't risk not signing petitions, calling, tweeting and sharing online like here on reddit (which turns out matter a lot). But, that's why we do need to change the way politics is done and not just money in politics, but open up the political process in millions of ways, including by demanding public accountability every step of the way using online and other means, and building a new kind of political movement that is resilient to the Chamber and other big industry doing this kind of thing, and passing possibly something like you suggest.
mrwazsx3 karma2015-10-26 18:02:18 UTC
Hi, As you say in the title: "it's the surveillance bill again." It seems like these bills keep reappearing in different forms. Do you see an end in sight, where these bills can be put to end for good - or is it always going to be defeating them as they come?
Thanks for the help!
fightforthefuture3 karma2015-10-26 18:08:57 UTC
I think we can put an end to CISA for good. We just need to kill it so bad that it becomes toxic and no one in Congress wants to go anywhere near it ever again. That's what happened to SOPA, so we know it's possible. The companies behind this would no doubt continue to try to sneak it through in some other form, but making Congress afraid to touch CISA or similar bills would be a huge step in the right direction.
_tx3 karma2015-10-26 17:28:05 UTC
Will this shit ever end?
Also, thank you for doing such great work. I cited a writ filed by the EFF when I was in undergrad and got pulled into an ethics committee for something pretty stupid. I have been donating to you guys since I graduated.
JaycoxEFF3 karma2015-10-26 17:36:03 UTC
It will end in the Senate on Tuesday, which is when votes on amendments and the bill are scheduled. It will then go to a conference committee where Senate and House leaders will merge the bill passed by the Senate with the one passed by the House. Generally, the bill then goes back to each chamber for a final vote with no amendments possible.
See Evan't answer also. Spot-on
ElvisIsReal3 karma2015-10-26 17:40:44 UTC
But even if we get CISA killed, it won't end. We'll just have to stop FKFE (Fluffy Kittens For Everybody) in two years, which has these terrible laws hidden inside.
fightforthefuture1 karma2015-10-26 18:07:24 UTC
One idea that keeps coming up that might be key is having media education in schools and everywhere else. We're at a point in our discourse where stats, statements, studies aren't rigorously understood and we're not having a conversation about reality, instead companies and legislators can put out press releases and statements like "we're doing everything to make sure our customers get the fastest speeds" when their plan has a million loopholes and fine print. It's the same for bills and policymaking.
courtiebabe4203 karma2015-10-26 18:08:18 UTC
Hello fightforthefuture! Your post has been removed because you have not provided adequate proof within a reasonable amount of time. Please see the /r/IAmA sidebar for posting guidelines. Thank you!
fightforthefuture2 karma2015-10-26 18:15:34 UTC
Can you please clarify what we need to provide? All of the participants are from organizations that have provided proof linked in the intro text.
StringOfLights2 karma2015-10-26 18:22:55 UTC
Hi, the issue is that it's not clear from your title who is doing the AMA. You'll need to submit with a title that specifically mentions who is doing the AMA.
fightforthefuture1 karma2015-10-26 18:48:50 UTC
Is there any way to change the title from your end since we're already having a discussion here? Also, so we know "w/ special guests" is allowed or not?
fightforthefuture0 karma2015-10-26 18:35:18 UTC
It also does not specify this in the rules. The rules give a format example for titles, but it does not state in the rules that the title has to identify the AMA participants.
StringOfLights2 karma2015-10-26 18:40:29 UTC
You don't need to list each person's name individually, but you do need to state the organizations. Right now the title doesn't even state what you guys do.
fightforthefuture2 karma2015-10-26 18:42:56 UTC
If that can get posts taken down it should be stated in the rules. Our intro clearly identifies us.
orangejulius2 karma2015-10-26 18:46:48 UTC
We're trying to help you out here. No need to be combative.
You need to post again with your organizations in the title so people can ID you from the title. You then need to clearly state who is doing the AMA in the text. "Special guests" is too ambiguous. Is it your director? Your CEO? Your office puppy mascot banging on a keyboard?
Feel free to skim through there or ask us if you have questions. We're happy to help out.
fightforthefuture1 karma2015-10-26 19:17:57 UTC
Thanks! One question -- can we link to this post in the new one so people can see the discussion that has happened?
fightforthefuture1 karma2015-10-26 19:41:36 UTC
Also, we weren't trying to be combative. There is quite a bit of ambiguity so we're trying to work it out. Thanks.
fightforthefuture0 karma2015-10-26 18:31:17 UTC
That hasn't been a problem with our past AMAs: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3f13sf/cisa_a_privacyinvasive_cybersecurity_surveillance/
fightforthefuture1 karma2015-10-26 18:20:44 UTC
We have also changed the proof for users fightforthefuture and evanFFTF. Not sure if that was the issue. Here's the new tweet for proof: https://twitter.com/fightfortheftr/status/658709418809434113
kyha1 karma2015-10-26 17:28:19 UTC
How much confusion has this bill likely gotten between the multiple meanings of CISA? How has this impacted the bill's support?
fightforthefuture7 karma2015-10-26 17:35:38 UTC
I do think that might cause confusion, we've seen the confusion for sure -- people are like, it's great but they are actually talking about the latter. Another related issue is going from CISPA to CISA... whether its strategy or not, it helps Congress to have a whole new name so we lose some momentum that we've gathered on the last round, even though it's the same bill and they can sound technocratic, "we've changed the bill, it's not the same."
jndtv1 karma2015-10-26 17:52:07 UTC
This bill immunizes companies from prosecution for the exchange of information. How many companies, especially big tech companies, would actually share private information of its users with other companies since if this was exposed it would do unthinkable damage to their brand?
Having said that, Facebook is publicly against the bill yet BoingBoing reported that Facebook is secretly lobbying for the bill, what do you think Facebook's justifications are for doing this and what response do have about this?
fightforthefuture1 karma2015-10-26 18:05:54 UTC
Companies will feel market pressure to share information and get CISA's special immunity protections. If they don't, their competitors will have an advantage. It's also going to favor big companies with resources that can easily comply with the reporting requirements that are likely to be part of the info sharing system.
Facebook and other companies really having nothing to lose with CISA, and they have a lot to gain under the immunity provisions. Facebook has shown time and time again that they don't respect user privacy. They are acting like the monopoly they are and trying to get special favors from the government without having to actually provide good services. Since there is essentially no competition in the social networking space, they aren't even that worried about being seen as a mass surveillance portal.
Copyright © 2014 BestofAMA.com, All rights reserved.
reddit has not approved or endorsed BestofAMA, reddit design elements are trademarks of reddit inc.