On a forum completely dedicated to a service which depends on a P2P networking method of transmission you would think a few more fucks would be given about this legislation. I guess you would be wrong.
+ infinity
Topic: This just in: House Passes Cybersecurity Measure CISPA [US] (Read 3525 times)
+ infinity
BTW, what's the highest grade/level of education that you have successfully completed?
I do not understand how insulting my intelligence helps your argument, please enlighten me.
He's probably one of those unemployed guys that only went to college because his daddy wanted him to and thinks everybody should be like him.
Correlation is not causality, yet correlation is present, are you a betting man? For your sake I hope not. 
No, I am not a gambler. I suspect I would get kicked out of Vegas very quickly, and I've never had any inclination to test that theory.You're going the long way around the block to put something there that does not need to be, it simply is what it is. Your claim "Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such" if true, supports the notion that dumbing down is simply broadly based much more readily than that this "public" you say exists has any basis for the supposed belief. After 40 years of a headlong escape into superstition and parochialism by large portions of the U.S. populace one would expect that to be the case.
I'm not saying the "public" has any basis for the belief, I'm saying that they have that belief. Whether the belief is valid or not is effectively irrelevant, but if you wish to debate it, I won't disappoint you. In my humble opinion the majority, though not all, of standardized tests are not an effective measure of future success because they measure abilities not often required in the workplace (such as handwriting a 25-minute timed essay) and fail to measure the skills most integral to success in the workplace (e.g. collaboration and ingenuity).
[...] the notion that dumbing down is simply broadly based [...]
I'm afraid I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to here. Can you clarify?
BTW, what's the highest grade/level of education that you have successfully completed?
I do not understand how insulting my intelligence helps your argument, please enlighten me.
On a forum completely dedicated to a service which depends on a P2P networking method of transmission you would think a few more fucks would be given about this legislation. I guess you would be wrong.
One of the only political things that got me off my arse was the internet filter, it was not an easy fight to change the sheeples minds away from what the tv said (The tv said that only paedophiles don't like internet filters) but we got it done (for now)Now i just need to destroy government currency and we will be on the right path
Do you have any evidence that one shouldn't? I'm not here to do your homework for you, but a few things that come to mind are proven positive correlation with lifetime earning ability and state measures of wealth and income, negative correlation with prison population percentages by state, and a recent history of improvement in the SAT tests themselves.
The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.
Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.
Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
You're on an incorrect thread of causality. Success on the SATs has virtually nothing to do with intelligence; it's about half information regurgitation and half test-taking skills. Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such. The fact that people who do well on their SATs are more likely to succeed is irrelevant; simply doing well on the SAT has a significant effect on college admissions, scholarships, and the like - enough to skew percentages that the ETS will no doubt use to persuade people of the validity of its test. I'm not disagreeing with the claim that education in the States is getting worse - nor am I agreeing with it - but in any case SAT scores are no valid proof of anything except the willingness of the public to accept far too much at face value.
You're going the long way around the block to put something there that does not need to be, it simply is what it is. Your claim "Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such" if true, supports the notion that dumbing down is simply broadly based much more readily than that this "public" you say exists has any basis for the supposed belief. After 40 years of a headlong escape into superstition and parochialism by large portions of the U.S. populace one would expect that to be the case.
BTW, what's the highest grade/level of education that you have successfully completed?
On a forum completely dedicated to a service which depends on a P2P networking method of transmission you would think a few more fucks would be given about this legislation. I guess you would be wrong.
AAAANNNNNDDDD putting the thread back on track with the subject CISPA : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-pirate-bay-to-fly-server-drones-to-avoid-law-enforcement-bitcoin-drones-73368 and http://wiki.daviddarts.com/PirateBox
Do you have any evidence that one shouldn't? I'm not here to do your homework for you, but a few things that come to mind are proven positive correlation with lifetime earning ability and state measures of wealth and income, negative correlation with prison population percentages by state, and a recent history of improvement in the SAT tests themselves.
The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.
Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.
Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
You're on an incorrect thread of causality. Success on the SATs has virtually nothing to do with intelligence; it's about half information regurgitation and half test-taking skills. Scores have declined over the years because a fair portion of the public has realized that standardized tests are no measure of future success and has stopped treating them as such. The fact that people who do well on their SATs are more likely to succeed is irrelevant; simply doing well on the SAT has a significant effect on college admissions, scholarships, and the like - enough to skew percentages that the ETS will no doubt use to persuade people of the validity of its test. I'm not disagreeing with the claim that education in the States is getting worse - nor am I agreeing with it - but in any case SAT scores are no valid proof of anything except the willingness of the public to accept far too much at face value.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
That's quite a map, the whole southern perimeter could be labeled "States To Avoid" or maybe "The Bumpkin Belt".
Evidently the U.S. isn't doing so hot in the measurable and quantifiable either.
SAT Scores Fall Nationwide: A Harbinger of U.S. Economic Decline
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/15/sat-scores-fall-nationwide-a-harbinger-of-u-s-economic-decline/
Falling SAT Scores, Widening Achievement Gap
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/falling-sat-scores-widening-achievement-gap/245176/
Why do you put stock in standardized test scores?
Do you have any evidence that one shouldn't? I'm not here to do your homework for you, but a few things that come to mind are proven positive correlation with lifetime earning ability and state measures of wealth and income, negative correlation with prison population percentages by state, and a recent history of improvement in the SAT tests themselves.
The latter is significant, during the 80s and 90s the SATs actually were made less difficult because top schools were not seeing the high scores they once did and did not want to lower their visible thresholds for admission so they successfully applied pressure to the Educational Testing Service to tweak the numbers upwards. In the last decade increasing complaints from all schools about the reduced screening effectiveness of the test led to a restructuring of the tests, for example, testing writing abilities.
Considering the period when the SATs were "dumbed down" so Harvard and others could look good, the 40 year decline in performance described in the articles above is actually worse than the score data would indicate. One might also wonder how much denialism about the validity of the tests impacted student performance, if Joe Know-Nothing's kids picked up the message that they didn't need to perform on no steenking SAT tests because the tests were not meaningful, pressure to perform in the areas the tests measure may have been removed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
That's quite a map, the whole southern perimeter could be labeled "States To Avoid" or maybe "The Bumpkin Belt".
Evidently the U.S. isn't doing so hot in the measurable and quantifiable either.
SAT Scores Fall Nationwide: A Harbinger of U.S. Economic Decline
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/15/sat-scores-fall-nationwide-a-harbinger-of-u-s-economic-decline/
Falling SAT Scores, Widening Achievement Gap
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/falling-sat-scores-widening-achievement-gap/245176/
Why do you put stock in standardized test scores?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
That's quite a map, the whole southern perimeter could be labeled "States To Avoid" or maybe "The Bumpkin Belt".
Evidently the U.S. isn't doing so hot in the measurable and quantifiable either.
SAT Scores Fall Nationwide: A Harbinger of U.S. Economic Decline
http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/09/15/sat-scores-fall-nationwide-a-harbinger-of-u-s-economic-decline/
Falling SAT Scores, Widening Achievement Gap
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/09/falling-sat-scores-widening-achievement-gap/245176/
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that?
Well all they are going to be doing is catching criminals, right? But since they get to pick how to do that and who is a criminal and they even get to change it as they go "catching criminals" pretty much means doing whatever the hell they want.
Oh ok.
I don't want them catching criminals since that would involve, well.. lets leave it at "catching people I know".
I laughed at the part where it said the government was not the enemy.
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that?
Well all they are going to be doing is catching criminals, right? But since they get to pick how to do that and who is a criminal and they even get to change it as they go "catching criminals" pretty much means doing whatever the hell they want.
Oh ok.
I don't want them catching criminals since that would involve, well.. lets leave it at "catching people I know".
This isn't a huge deal. They've already been doing all of this stuff in meatspace for a long time now, tracking innocent people and basically bungling law enforcement in general. And they've been doing most of it on the internet as well. It's just not completely out in the open.
Most people will not care about this, just as most people didn't care about NDAA or warrantless wiretapping or the literal dozens of other unconstitutional oppressive tactics used by the US government against the American people for decades now.
Most people don't care that the Treasury has used regressive taxation and twisted legal interpretation of the Constitution in order to literally sell the country to foreigners and to literally sell future generations into debt-serfdom.
Most people don't care that incompetent, unconstitutional agencies like the EPA and SEC are used as vehicles of cronyism, in order to extra-judicially punish industries and businesses that fail to curry favor with the current administration and to reward those that are politically connected and make generous campaign donations.
Most people don't care that the Justice Department shipped guns into Mexico and helped to murder US citizens in order to influence public opinion against the second amendment, or that they tried to orchestrate a race war and instigated racial violence in the Martin case in order to disparage self-defense and community policing.
The majority will not care when they start revoking passports and instating capital controls. And the majority will not care about whatever comes next, whether "voluntary" work camps or more false-flag terror attacks and a military draft or just ramped-up jack-booted police state, engineered economic stagnation and financial repression.
It's far too late in the game to be outraged over formalities like these. Just get your shit together, learn to stand up for your rights and ignore nonsense like this because it's irrelevant anyways.
Most people will not care about this, just as most people didn't care about NDAA or warrantless wiretapping or the literal dozens of other unconstitutional oppressive tactics used by the US government against the American people for decades now.
Most people don't care that the Treasury has used regressive taxation and twisted legal interpretation of the Constitution in order to literally sell the country to foreigners and to literally sell future generations into debt-serfdom.
Most people don't care that incompetent, unconstitutional agencies like the EPA and SEC are used as vehicles of cronyism, in order to extra-judicially punish industries and businesses that fail to curry favor with the current administration and to reward those that are politically connected and make generous campaign donations.
Most people don't care that the Justice Department shipped guns into Mexico and helped to murder US citizens in order to influence public opinion against the second amendment, or that they tried to orchestrate a race war and instigated racial violence in the Martin case in order to disparage self-defense and community policing.
The majority will not care when they start revoking passports and instating capital controls. And the majority will not care about whatever comes next, whether "voluntary" work camps or more false-flag terror attacks and a military draft or just ramped-up jack-booted police state, engineered economic stagnation and financial repression.
It's far too late in the game to be outraged over formalities like these. Just get your shit together, learn to stand up for your rights and ignore nonsense like this because it's irrelevant anyways.
THIS IS A HUGE DEAL. BE OUTRAGED, go research it for yourself.
People seem to have quickly forgotten the bunch of worthless pissants with minds crippled by superstition, parochialism, and preposterous ideologies they put in the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010. The House has been nearly completely dysfunctional since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
It was said in the 1970s that the attention span of the American electorate was approximately equal to the length of a beer commercial. These days that attention span is comparable to that of a parakeet, as seems to be the average IQ.
This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus
It was said in the 1970s that the attention span of the American electorate was approximately equal to the length of a beer commercial. These days that attention span is comparable to that of a parakeet, as seems to be the average IQ.
This is the payoff for forty years of wishful escapism and deliberate dumbing down. Enjoy it, it won't be fixed and by the time it could be it really won't matter any more, they made you world-class losers and you loved it the whole way.
Those mother fuckers. 
This +11 You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that?
Well all they are going to be doing is catching criminals, right? But since they get to pick how to do that and who is a criminal and they even get to change it as they go "catching criminals" pretty much means doing whatever the hell they want.
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that?
Well all they are going to be doing is catching criminals, right? But since they get to pick how to do that and who is a criminal and they even get to change it as they go "catching criminals" pretty much means doing whatever the hell they want.
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that?
From wiki:
On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA.
House Voting Counts
Full list can be seen at the House.gov site. [21]
Ayes Votes
Republican: 206 Democrat: 42
Noes Votes
Republican: 28 Democrat: 140
NV Votes
Republican: 7 Democrat: 8
Supporters
CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.
Republicans, I am disappoint. On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA.
House Voting Counts
Full list can be seen at the House.gov site. [21]
Ayes Votes
Republican: 206 Democrat: 42
Noes Votes
Republican: 28 Democrat: 140
NV Votes
Republican: 7 Democrat: 8
Supporters
CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.
Quote
The bill immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for voluntarily disclosing customer information thought to be a security threat.
When there's no court order needs, the social engineering attempts to get out personal information and the misuse from government and private companies are only going to increase.
I hardly thought it could get much worse but as usual, I stand unfortunately corrected. This is yet one step closer to a Police State from NSL's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Security_Letter
Where I live, regular use of Tor and strong encryption would be more than enough to qualify as "suspicious activity" (if you're not doing anything wrong you shouldn't have anything to hide.....). If you don't see me post for a while you'll know I've been tracked down and sent to jail for conspicuously awesome internet hygiene.
When there's no court order needs, the social engineering attempts to get out personal information and the misuse from government and private companies are only going to increase.
Excellent point
From wiki:
On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA.
House Voting Counts
Full list can be seen at the House.gov site. [21]
Ayes Votes
Republican: 206 Democrat: 42
Noes Votes
Republican: 28 Democrat: 140
NV Votes
Republican: 7 Democrat: 8
Supporters
CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.
On April 26, 2012, the House of Representatives passed CISPA.
House Voting Counts
Full list can be seen at the House.gov site. [21]
Ayes Votes
Republican: 206 Democrat: 42
Noes Votes
Republican: 28 Democrat: 140
NV Votes
Republican: 7 Democrat: 8
Supporters
CISPA is supported by several trade groups containing more than eight hundred private companies, including the Business Software Alliance, CTIA – The Wireless Association, Information Technology Industry Council, Internet Security Alliance, National Cable & Telecommunications Association, National Defense Industrial Association, TechAmerica and United States Chamber of Commerce, in addition to individual major telecommunications and information technology companies like AT&T, Facebook, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle Corporation, Symantec, and Verizon.
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
So you want them catching criminals but not defining 'criminal'? Who ought be doing that?
Quote
The bill immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for voluntarily disclosing customer information thought to be a security threat.
Wow. So if someone somehow thinks you or some of the systems or persons using the computer systems registered on your name is thought to be a security threat, then they could share any information about you with the govt. or any other entity?
We have several cases from real life showing that not even judges and lawyers always manages to use common sense when handling persons percieved to be a 'security threat', and now we're going to have people who have no business taking legal decisions deciding when it's right to share information and not ?
A free man should be able to exercise his freedom be it offline or online, that's my stand. So basically now, if anyone wants your information, they could just call an ISP and say in a very serious voice to a stressed out sysadmin; Hi I'm Bob Hansen, calling from the local FBI office, we believe to have very serious security threats coming from user with ip 345.233.323.233 from you system. We need the Name, Street Address and Billing contact information NOW!
When there's no court order needs, the social engineering attempts to get out personal information and the misuse from government and private companies are only going to increase.
Also Imagine you or some of your friends or a remote hacker does some nefarious stuff with your current ISP account, and then later on you've straightened up your ways or gotten rid of the the malware, and get's rejected by the current ISP, and you try another ISP and you again get rejected for 'security reasons'. (ISPs sharing information about your activities and blacklisting you).
Personally I don't think a customers private information should be shared with anyone unless there's a court order allowing it.
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do.
"
OMB said that the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace."
"
You should spend less time listening to the PR and more time reading the actual language of the amendments. I'm not going to waste even a second more on this topic, so if you want to know the reality of this matter feel free to do your own research.
You may know more about this then me. I didn't think the president proposed amendments to bills but I guess I am wrong.
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do.
"
OMB said that the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace."
"
You should spend less time listening to the PR and more time reading the actual language of the amendments. I'm not going to waste even a second more on this topic, so if you want to know the reality of this matter feel free to do your own research.
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do.
"
OMB said that the administration was "committed to increasing public-private sharing of information about cybersecurity threats" but said the process "must be conducted in a manner that preserves Americans' privacy, data confidentiality, and civil liberties and recognizes the civilian nature of cyberspace."
"
You know, I'm all for the government catching criminals, but things like this are taking it too far.
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Yes he said that, because he said it wasn't far reaching enough. But I think they "fixed" what more he thought it should do.
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Guys, guys, don't worry about it, no need for a big campaign about this one, I've got it under control.
<
Obama has said he will veto it. Hopefully he keeps that promise.
Onward we march into tyranny... thank god for Bitcoin
Those mother fuckers. I can't express how angry it makes me that some people out there think they own me.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/house-passes-cispa/
I can't express how angry it makes me that some people out there think they own me.Quote
The House on Thursday approved cybersecurity legislation that privacy groups cautioned was a threat to civil liberties.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), passed on a vote of 248 to 168.
The Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act, or CISPA, sponsored by Reps. Mike Rogers (R-Michigan) and Dutch Ruppersberger (D-Maryland), passed on a vote of 248 to 168.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/04/house-passes-cispa/
Jump to: