Obama Fucks The Internet

[Technician]

How Obama's Hacking Laws Could Make You a Criminal

Computer-security researchers fear President Barack Obama's proposed changes to federal hacking laws could put them out of business, could make computers less secure overall, and could put some of them — and maybe even you — in prison.

Obama plans to showcase the proposals in his State of the Union address tonight (Jan. 20). The changes to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), first implemented in 1984, might make many commonplace security-research practices — and media reporting on those practices — federal crimes. Even sharing passwords for online accounts would potentially be punishable.

"Believe what you've heard" about Obama's proposals, Joseph Lorenzo Hall, chief technologist at the Center for Democracy & Technology, warned this past Friday (Jan. 16) at ShmooCon 2015.

The proposed changes to the CFAA and related laws, posted online by the White House early last week, would broaden the definition of computer crime and stiffen penalties for existing crimes, including doubling the maximum penalty for many violations from 10 years to 20 years.

cont.

[Blastfrog]

I really hope this doesn't go through, it'll benefit no one and just be a big pain in the ass for everyone involved.

I find it laughable when people say our president is pro-internet. This is the same guy who expanded the NSA under his watch and appointed Tom Wheeler to be the chairman of the FCC. His words are nice but meaningless, his actions show his true intent and that intent is a nasty one.

[sheridan]

The guy has proven he's not knowledgeable in the least when it comes to anything technical. I don't think he has malicious intentions, he's just doing what politicians do best: making crowd pleasing statements one minute, and rubbing elbows with senators the next.

[Kontra Kommando]

sheridan said:

The guy has proven he's not knowledgeable in the least when it comes to anything technical. I don't think he has malicious intentions, he's just doing what politicians do best: making crowd pleasing statements one minute, and rubbing elbows with senators the next.

I'm sure he doesn't know anything technical. Because that's hardly a skill-set that is applicable to be president. The latter part of what you said is in fact what he's supposed to be doing. Nevertheless, I'm sure he has plenty of people who do in fact know the technical side of this proposed legislation; the U.S. government invented the internet.

But yea, Obama is a great orator, but is hardly a genuine champion of freedom. As Sodaholic said, he has greatly expanded the NSA to spy on people.

[Clonehunter]

And yet people are still claiming that Obama is working for the Safety and freedom of the Internet, anyways. Hah, good one. This better get booed off of the stage. Granted, everyone will probably be paid to cheer anyways, unless they want spy drones monitoring their house 24/7 (Despite the fact that that's already happening).

[Technician]

Clonehunter said:

edit: how the hell did that happen (double post)

Fucking Obama.

[Pencil of Doom]

Kontra Kommando said:

But yea, Obama is a great orator, but is hardly a genuine champion of freedom. As Sodaholic said, he has greatly expanded the NSA to spy on people.

1+ to this and Sodaholic, i've always suspected Obama was up to no good, thankfully i reallized it just in time and now i'm another of those who oppose Obama or shall i say Barakka Obama.

[Blastfrog]

J.B.R said:

or shall i say Barakka Obama.

I'm criticizing him strictly from a policy standpoint. Please don't fall for the far-right "but heeza muzzlim!" line.

[Kontra Kommando]

J.B.R said:

1+ to this and Sodaholic, i've always suspected Obama was up to no good, thankfully i reallized it just in time and now i'm another of those who oppose Obama or shall i say Barakka Obama.

As much as I disagree with some of Obama's policies, I think Romney would have been a real shit-heel as well. Under Romney and company, we would have had a lot of judeo-christian fundamentalist policies encroaching upon civil liberties. Not to mention, he would not have been fiscally responsible either; Republicans would have just diverted funds towards more military operations. I do believe we need to keep the military strong, but we should be smarter about it. For example, the U.S. recently has withdrawn troops form Germany, and Italy. In the age we live in, we don't need to spending money to maintain those bases in places that aren't under threat. Our military can still mobilize and attack far reaches of the world, without us having to have these bases. Moreover, we don't need huge military operations to fight terrorism. Rather, we should combat terrorism with espionage, and special forces. Instead of invading land masses, we need destroy these terrorist organizations from the inside out, by infiltrating them/ assassinating their leadership/ sabotaging their operations. Basically, don't use a bazooka to kill a cockroach.

[geo]

Even if it does happen. Never gonna happen. No one is competent enough over there to give a fuck. I've worked with some of those people in a 3rd party capacity. Its just having the power and never using it. Its just another specter of "take our *blank* away."

[Kontra Kommando]

Sodaholic said:

I'm criticizing him strictly from a policy standpoint. Please don't fall for the far-right "but heeza muzzlim!" line.

The issue I find though is that the media, and some on the left may automatically pigeon-hole anyone that slightly criticizes the president as a right-wing extremist.

It reminds me of an episode of Bill Maher I saw a while ago when he criticized Obama for something (I can't remember). The crowd groaned in response. Maher fired back at them and said, "look he's a politician, he's not your boyfriend".

On a side note, I'm proud of Bill doubling down on his sentiments towards radical Islam. All that, despite the effort of left-wing nuts trying to bury him as a racist. The man thinks ALL religion is stupid, not just islam. But he's bold enough to say that he's disturbed by the frequency of terrorism that spawns from it. He's ridiculed the media in the past for not labeling christian terrorists as terrorists. To me, Bill Maher seems like a fair person.

[Blastfrog]

Kontra Kommando said:

As much as I disagree with some of Obama's policies, I think Romney would have been a real shit-heel as well.

He'd have been far worse if he got in. Obama was definitely the lesser of two evils, but I'd rather have more than two options to pick from, preferably with at least one of them not being 'evil'.

Kontra Kommando said:

The issue I find though is that the media, and some on the left may automatically pigeon-hole anyone that slightly criticizes the president as a right-wing extremist.

Yes, that can be irritating, but don't think that's what I was doing. I'm not calling J.B.R right-wing or Islamaphobic, just that his "Baraka" sentiment is not a legitimate criticism and is a strawman used by the right whether J.B.R intended to feed into that or not. All I'm saying is if anyone is to be criticized, it should be for legitimate reasons and not made up partisan bullshit pushed by the likes of Fox News. Spewing crap like "islamic satanist communist fascist" does no good in a debate.

If Obama is anything other than the Christian he claims to be, it's more likely that he's an atheist or agnostic, but it's not relevant or provable. One thing that can be demonstrated given his record is that he's rather friendly with corporatist neocons (and arguably is one himself despite his speeches trying to paint himself otherwise).

Kontra Kommando said:

Stuff about Bill Maher

Religion is foolish in general, Islam does spawn more radicals than other Abrahamic religions, and Bill is right to point that out. However, I believe that there are moderates and that they're fine as long as they don't infringe on others' freedom or safety.

[Gez]

I always found the term "moderate Muslim" absolutely ridiculous. Do we talk about "moderate Christians" or "moderate Shintos" or whatever? Just call them Muslims. Or, if you absolutely want a qualifier, "sane Muslims".

[Kontra Kommando]

Sodaholic said:

If Obama is anything other than the Christian he claims to be, it's more likely that he's an atheist or agnostic, but it's not relevant or provable. One thing that can be demonstrated given his record is that he's rather friendly with corporatist neocons (and arguably is one himself despite his speeches trying to paint himself otherwise).

I wasn't accusing you of pigeon-holing him, I was just making note of others that would.

Obama is a christian on paper, but I wouldn't be surprised if he was an atheist or agnostic. I think it would be great if he was, and admitted it. But that would absolutely be political-suicide. I wouldn't be surprised if many more politicians were as well, on both the left and right. Shit, if some of them lie about their sexuality; substance-abuse; affiliations; etc; being an atheist isn't hard to believe. But I think its foolish to accuse him of being a secret-Muslim. I think among most people today, this belief is synonymous with political ignorance. Moreover, it is in fact a racist sentiment.

[Fulgrim]

I really wish people would start seeing the pattern here. Negative event occurs. Federal Government says they need to protect us. Federal Government says x happened while never giving any evidence to prove their claim or they get caught red handed fabricating evidence. Federal Government over steps Constitutional boundaries and takes away another large chunk of our freedoms.

Also, while this is going on Congress is having meeting that could lead to them killing off net neutrality and Verizon is claiming that the end of it would allow them to help blind, deaf, and disabled people.

Lets not forget that many of the independent investigators (those with no ties to Sony or the government) are saying that the Sony hack was clearly an inside job. Also remember that once again the federal government has claimed they have evidence proving that North Korea hacked Sony and they have yet to make any of this evidence public.

[Blastfrog]

Gez said:

I always found the term "moderate Muslim" absolutely ridiculous. Do we talk about "moderate Christians" or "moderate Shintos" or whatever?

It's really more of a means of pointing out to Islam-haters that the extremists are still the minority (even if their religion has a bigger minority of nuts than others). There would be no use for the term if not for the cultural bias. And yes, there is a bias, just look at Faux for two seconds and know that there are people that actually listen to those fucks.

We don't talk about "moderate" Christians and the like because they've already established themselves as the dominant group in western culture, they need no qualifier because it's already understood by 99% of people that the majority of followers of that religion aren't gun-toting maniacs.

I too think the term is ridiculous, but I don't question the reasons for its use because I know why the term is used. It's unfortunate, but necessary to shut irrational bigots up sometimes (and even then some of them are so far gone they'll insist they're all radicals).

EDIT: To clarify, Muslims themselves need no reassurance. What I mean is that its existence and use is more a tool to counter irrational arguments against the entire population than any kind of "reassurance". It isn't for the Muslims.

Gez said:

Or, if you absolutely want a qualifier, "sane Muslims".

TBH, sane does sound better than moderate.

Religious texts in general contain some pretty fucking awful things. The important distinction to make is not which religion someone belongs to, but whether they actually take it seriously. Healthy human beings prioritize basic functionality with the rest of society over clearly inapplicable dogma.

Religion needs to be shaken off eventually, but declawing it is the first step.

Fulgrim said:

I really wish people would start seeing the pattern here. Negative event occurs. Federal Government says they need to protect us. Federal Government says x happened while never giving any evidence to prove their claim or they get caught red handed fabricating evidence. Federal Government over steps Constitutional boundaries and takes away another large chunk of our freedoms.

I think most people do see a pattern, it's just that we have no representation in this rigged game and the powerful do as they damn well please.

Unless things show signs of truly getting better, I really gotta start preparing to get to a fairer country.

Kontra Kommando said:

I wasn't accusing you of pigeon-holing him, I was just making note of others that would.

I didn't know what your intention was but I wasn't jumping to the conclusion that you were accusing me of pigeon-holing him. My response was more of an elaboration for anyone that might accuse me of that regardless of who's reading my posts.

[Maes]

I thought that it was Eric Bauman who made the Internet his bitch:

[Avoozl]

Oh for fucks sake, will there ever be a end to this and is Obama ever likely to get booted out of power any time soon?

[Technician]

Avoozl said:

Oh for fucks sake, will there ever be a end to this and is Obama ever likely to get booted out of power any time soon?

Hillary will be taking his place next year.

[Blastfrog]

Avoozl said:

Oh for fucks sake, will there ever be a end to this

Not until campaign finance is reformed, and I'm not holding my breath. (that and Cenk is a bit of a clown at times)

Avoozl said:

and is Obama ever likely to get booted out of power any time soon?

Not until his term expires naturally in 2016, then we can look forward to being assraped by Hillary. Warren would be a nice candidate, but she seems disinterested in running and I rather dislike her anti-drug stance. That and I kinda get the feeling that she wouldn't live up to her positive reputation anyway if she gets into office. I don't even wanna think about what the GOP has in store for 2016.

I always vote Green Party when available as a protest vote. I'd love if they could get into power for once as opposed to republicans and diet-republicans doing deals in the back and showbiz up front. I know it won't happen, but I can dream, right?


Man, I am feeling cynical as hell tonight.

[Quast]

Sodaholic said:

I really hope this doesn't go through

It won't. The house and senate will stone wall him at every opportunity, including this one, just to spite him.

[RUSH]

This is why I worry about the future. Year after year there's an enormous push for further control over the internet and it's content. Increasing surveillance and militarization in both America and here in Canada is quite honestly frightening. People should spend more time looking into the truth of what's going on instead of watching their stupid reality TV shows. People need to start waking up or we may all be in big trouble one day. It's pretty clear that the interests of us citizens are no longer a concern to big brother.

[MFG38]

Yep. Fuck Obama officially to Hell and back.

[Caffeine Freak]

Quast said:

It won't. The house and senate will stone wall him at every opportunity, including this one, just to spite him.

I had something of a similar thought. This would be one of those occasions where the Republicans could do good by saying 'no'---although, since their initial opposition to the Net Neutrality proposals makes their technical knowledge seem equally as limited as Obama's does here, it doesn't make me feel hopeful.

[Fulgrim]

Obama is simply doing what he is told to do. Just like every other corrupt official in Washington. Yes, you should be angry at him. But you should be even more angry at the people that continue to elect corrupt officials like him into office. Because that's the root cause of the problem.

[Kontra Kommando]

Fulgrim said:

Obama is simply doing what he is told to do. Just like every other corrupt official in Washington. Yes, you should be angry at him. But you should be even more angry at the people that continue to elect corrupt officials like him into office. Because that's the root cause of the problem.

People need to stop re-electing shitty congressmen. They are the ones that draft these awful laws.

Its not that people should stop voting; they need to be more engaged in local politics.

[Fulgrim]

Kontra Kommando said:

People need to stop re-electing shitty congressmen. They are the ones that draft these awful laws.

Its not that people should stop voting; they need to be more engaged in local politics.

True, but you can't forget that without the Presidents signature, congress more or less can't get anything done. Making the president just as guilty when he signs as congress is.

Also, many people are working at the State level. Many ant-corruption laws are popping across the US that specifically targeting corruption at the congressional level. Thankfully they seem to be passing just as fast as they are introduced. But, we need more support from people.

[Kontra Kommando]

Fulgrim said:

True, but you can't forget that without the Presidents signature, congress more or less can't get anything done. Making the president just as guilty when he signs as congress is.

Also, many people are working at the State level. Many ant-corruption laws are popping across the US that specifically targeting corruption at the congressional level. Thankfully they seem to be passing just as fast as they are introduced. But, we need more support from people.

What happens with a lot of legislation, is that through compromise between republicans, and democrats, original intentions get altered. Multi-faceted interests alter legislation; these deals are done to pass bills into law. For example, say democrats want to enact a bill that aims to regulate a particular industry. In order for that bill to pass, it must get enough votes in congress. If democrats do not have a super-majority, they must rely on Republicans to vote in favor of the said bill. Therefore, they're forced to bargain with them, by attaching new pieces of legislation that serve the Republican agenda, in order to pass the original legislation the Dems wanted.

Here's another example, say republicans want to pass a bill, and must bargain with democrats. Sometimes, opposing parties will purposefully demand for what is know as a "Poison Pill". This is legislation that is attached to a bill in order to foster an negative public response for the party that originally wanted the bill in the first place; they set them up to fail. This is a very Machiavellian political tactic. The intention is to make the other party look bad, or to discredit a policy that is irreconcilable to the opposing party's ideology.

This is what people in congress do regularly. Some scholars would say that this aspect of being forced to compromise on issues is actually beneficial to society. Because it doesn't allow any one political ideology to tip the balance of power; creating a tyranny of the majority. Some would argue that it does more damage to the public interest by inhibiting decisive action by the will of the majority.

Therefore, throughout the Obama years, we've had divided government. Thus, there was a ton of fucked up deals going down, between the two opposing parties. Though at the beginning, the dems did have the super-majority. But curiously, they did not use it to their full advantage.

[Enjay]

I believe the customary reply is "thanks Obama".

[Pencil of Doom]

Fulgrim said:

Obama is simply doing what he is told to do. Just like every other corrupt official in Washington. Yes, you should be angry at him. But you should be even more angry at the people that continue to elect corrupt officials like him into office. Because that's the root cause of the problem.

This.
But USA isn't the only country where it happens,France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Russia, Itally and other EU countries also have this happening.