We are at war! Protect our information SMASH CISPA!

We are at war guys and gals!
Yes we are at total war;
To control the direction of war you must control the peoples information.
Some time ago we lost the media and now they are going after our internet.
I get it – your scared! and maybe don’t really give a fuck about fighting, but
we should pick this fight if not any other fight!
Protect our internet at all costs.
Unfortunately most of us won’t even lift a finger.
We would rather post some stupid shit about a cat or some bullshit re-sited story or saying…. Well guess what suckas! these bills look to put you in jail for sharing that very information you so cutely share with your friends.
It might not be that bad right of the bat but these bills are the beginning of a series of bills that will turn the internet into a money making machine for a very small percentage of people.
Right now there is still hope
but that means that we must fight for every inch of the battle field.
we do have an advantage right now though – the ball is on our playing field. The internet is ours.
OURS.
OUR CYBER LAND
“OUR LAND”

If you don’t know what to do – just sign a petition;
write facebook a letter saying how you don’t approve of their backing CISPA.
sign a premade letter to facebook from http://www.demandprogress.org
send a letter to your congressman asking them to appose this bill
send a letter to the WhiteHouse
plaster your facebook walls with anti CISPA stuff and go on a FB strike and log in only every other time you would normally.

banning facebook alltogether and going to myspace.
Closing your facebook account

See there are many things that you can do to help this battle. Most things that you do won’t seem like much and won’t seem like they will make a difference but trust me your one voice is shared by thousands and our voice will be heard.
Since we started this campaign FB and the Whitehouse have responded to our petition.
We are being noticed.

We are the 99% and we are not sheep!
we will not back down,
we will not stand aside,
we will fight and we will win!

An Inch At A Time

 

Let me tell you a little about what is going on with the internet from my own point of view. Up untill just recently technology advancements were reserved for the 1% because the learning curve and cost was so hard and too steep.

We need to be careful with our new-found power and wonder – suddenly you have at your fingertips all the information of the world!
this is power!
this is money!
Today how it is, the internet is free. There are internet provider bills but that’s a different bill.  I’m talking the information that is redly accessible by every man woman and child. There are people of greed that would have that ripped from our hands if they could…If we allow them.

An inch at a time
all it takes is an inch to win a football game.
An inch to win that race.
An inch at a time;
that is how things are won.
These people of greed;  they are patient and an inch is a victory, reaching them closer, and us an inch farther behind.  It might not seem like much but an inch at a time is how they could win.
Help me fight CISPA and every other infringement of this new-found freedom;

Our passion
Our new Alexandria Library.

 

Demand facebook back down from CISPA support

http://act.demandprogress.org/sign/cispa_facebook/?akid=1309.485572.9CpqR9&rd=1&t=5

Sign the petition above or our rights as a free people’s is going to domino into a communist style mentality.  This is the first step to fully controlling mankind like the Romans tried  by controlling their information and spreading their selfish propaganda.  Hitler did the same thing to the people’s that he took over.  He burned their libraries and tried to erase their history – the same thing will happen to us if we allow it.

We are at war here!

We must protect the internet at all costs!  it’s humanities voice, that the powers that be would love to silence.  People die for stupid causes while worthwhile causes get little attention until it’s too late; this noble cause is misunderstood because it’s hidden under a vail that claims to protect us.

if all you do is sign that petition – it will be a good step – but if all you do is sign that petition you should search your soul for real cause.

do much more than sign this petition!  Our future depends on it.

What Really Is CISPA?

from the time-to-speak-up dept

The forces behind HR 3523, the dangerous Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act which is going to move forward in Congress at the end of the month, are beginning to get cagey about the growing backlash from the internet community. In an attempt to address some of the key concerns, the bill’s authors, representatives Mike Rogers and Dutch Ruppersberger, hosted a conference call specifically geared at digital reporters. The invitation was for “Cyber Media and Cyber Bloggers” (seriously) and took place at 7am Silicon Valley time—thus demonstrating that they are totally in touch with the tech community. During the call, the representatives were intent on hammering certain points home: that the bill respects privacy and civil liberties, is not about surveillance, is targeted at actions by foreign states, and is nothing like SOPA.

Unfortunately, none of that is really true. The text of the bill, even with the two keyamendments made since (all pdf links and embedded below), is still full of extremely broad definitions which fail to create the safeguards that the representatives insist are present, and which leave room for dangerous unintended consequences.

CISPA at a Glance
In broad terms, CISPA is about information sharing. It creates broad legal exemptions that allow the government to share “cyber threat intelligence” with private companies, and companies to share “cyber threat information” with the government, for the purposes of enhancing cybersecurity. The problems arise from the definitions of these terms, especially when it comes to companies sharing data with the feds.

Is CISPA the new SOPA?
This is the notion that the reps behind the bill are most desperate to kill. Their primary response is that CISPA has nothing to do with seizing domains or censoring websites, but that’s only true on the surface. The bill defines “cybersecurity systems” and “cyber threat information” as anything to do with protecting a network from:

‘(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

‘(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

It’s easy to see how that definition could be interpreted to include things that go way beyond network security—specifically, copyright policing systems at virtually any point along a network could easily qualify. And since one of the recipients of the shared information would be Homeland Security—the department that includes ICE and its ongoing domain seizures—CISPA creates the very real possibility for this information to be used as part of a SOPA-like crusade to lock down the internet. So while the bill itself has nothing to do with domain seizures, it gives the people behind such seizures a potentially powerful new weapon.

The reps insist that when they refer to intellectual property, they are not thinking about media piracy or even counterfeiting, but about foreign-based attacks on domestic companies to steal their research and development (they tout examples like the plans for jet fighters). Unfortunately, the bill’s definitions create no such restriction, leaving the door wide open for more creative interpretations.

How can the government use the information?
The original text of the bill was really bad, simply saying the government cannot use the information for “regulatory purposes.” This was amended to be more restrictive, but not by much: now, the same broad “cybersecurity” definition applies to what they can use the data for, and as if that wasn’t enough, they can also use it for “the protection of the national security of the United States.” I don’t need to tell you that the government is not exactly famous for narrowly interpreting “national security.”

So is CISPA a surveillance bill?
The bill specifically prohibits the government from requiring anyone to hand over information, or offering any sort of “quid pro quo” data sharing arrangement. Sharing information is voluntary, and as far as the bill’s supporters are concerned, that should end the debate. Of course, as we’ve seen with things like the warrantless wiretapping scandal, complicity between companies and the government, even when legally questionable, is common and widespread. But even if the safeguards work, CISPA will undoubtedly allow for invasions of privacy that amount to surveillance.

Firstly, while the reps insist that the bill only applies to companies and not individuals, that’s very disingenuous. CISPA states that the entity providing the information cannot be an individual or be working for an individual, but the data they share (traffic, user activity, etc.) will absolutely include information about individuals. There is no incentive in the bill to anonymize this data—there is only a clause permitting anonymization, which is meaningless since the choice of what data to share is already voluntary. Note that any existing legal protections of user privacy will not apply: the bill clearly states that the information may be shared “notwithstanding any other provision of law”.

So we’ve got the government collecting this data, potentially full of identifying information of users in the U.S. and elsewhere, and they are free to use it for any of those broadly defined cybersecurity or national security purposes. But, it gets worse: the government is also allowed toaffirmatively search the information for those same reasons—meaning they are by no means limited to examining the data in relation to a specific threat. If, for example, a company were to provide logs of a major attack on their network, the government could then search that information for pretty much anything else they want.

Can CISPA be fixed?
Most of the new provisions currently being considered for CISPA have to do with adding oversight and liability to prevent the government from violating any of the terms—but that doesn’t address the problems in the bill at all, since the terms are already so broad. CISPA would require significant new restrictions to come anywhere close to being a good bill—a fact that points to Congress’ inability to effectively design internet regulation. Moreover, there isn’t even clear evidence that new cybersecurity laws are necessary. This is a bill that needs to die.

The EFF has a tool to help you contact your representative about CISPA and the broader issue of cybersecurity legislation. The bill is going to the House the week of April 23rd, so now is the time to get involved. As with SOPA, this is not an issue that solely effects Americans: the data may come from U.S. companies, but it will involve people from all over the world—and, indeed, foreign entities are one of the bill’s prime targets. It’s once again time for the internet to speak up and send a clear message to Congress: don’t mess with something you don’t understand.

 

CISPA CRS summary

SUMMARY AS OF:
11/30/2011–Introduced.

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 – Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing. Defines “cyber threat intelligence” as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from: (1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

Requires the Director of National Intelligence to: (1) establish procedures to allow intelligence community elements to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities, and (2) encourage the sharing of such intelligence.

Requires the procedures established to ensure that such intelligence is only: (1) shared with certified entities or a person with an appropriate security clearance, (2) shared consistent with the need to protect U.S. national security, and (3) used in a manner that protects such intelligence from unauthorized disclosure. Provides for guidelines for the granting of security clearance approvals to certified entities or officers or employees of such entities.

Authorizes a cybersecurity provider (a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes), with the express consent of a protected entity (an entity that contracts with a cybersecurity provider) to: (1) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property of the protected entity; and (2) share cyber threat information with any other entity designated by the protected entity, including the federal government. Regulates the use and protection of shared information, including prohibiting the use of such information to gain a competitive advantage and, if shared with the federal government, exempts such information from public disclosure. Prohibits a civil or criminal cause of action against a protected entity, a self-protected entity (an entity that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself), or a cybersecurity provider acting in good faith under the above circumstances.

Directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to submit annually to Congress a review of the sharing and use of such information by the federal government, as well as recommendations for improvements and modifications to address privacy and civil liberties concerns.

Preempts any state statute that restricts or otherwise regulates an activity authorized by the Act.

 

if you donate every last dollar will go to spreading the word about CISPA – I’ve been at it now for 6 hours and will give all my free time until I see this through.

CISPA Summary – a summary of CISPA

Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 – Amends the National Security Act of 1947 to add provisions concerning cyber threat intelligence and information sharing. Defines “cyber threat intelligence” as information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from: (1) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or (2) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

Requires the Director of National Intelligence to: (1) establish procedures to allow intelligence community elements to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities, and (2) encourage the sharing of such intelligence.

Requires the procedures established to ensure that such intelligence is only: (1) shared with certified entities or a person with an appropriate security clearance, (2) shared consistent with the need to protect U.S. national security, and (3) used in a manner that protects such intelligence from unauthorized disclosure. Provides for guidelines for the granting of security clearance approvals to certified entities or officers or employees of such entities.

Authorizes a cybersecurity provider (a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes), with the express consent of a protected entity (an entity that contracts with a cybersecurity provider) to: (1) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information in order to protect the rights and property of the protected entity; and (2) share cyber threat information with any other entity designated by the protected entity, including the federal government. Regulates the use and protection of shared information, including prohibiting the use of such information to gain a competitive advantage and, if shared with the federal government, exempts such information from public disclosure. Prohibits a civil or criminal cause of action against a protected entity, a self-protected entity (an entity that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself), or a cybersecurity provider acting in good faith under the above circumstances.

Directs the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board to submit annually to Congress a review of the sharing and use of such information by the federal government, as well as recommendations for improvements and modifications to address privacy and civil liberties concerns.

Preempts any state statute that restricts or otherwise regulates an activity authorized by the Act.

 

The Actual CISPA bill – What does CISPA really say?

H.R.3523 — Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011 (Introduced in House – IH)

HR 3523 IH

112th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 3523To provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 30, 2011Mr. ROGERS of Michigan (for himself, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. UPTON, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. BOREN, Mr. LOBIONDO, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. NUNES, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. ROONEY, Mr. HECK, Mr. DICKS, Mr. MCCAUL, Mr. WALDEN, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. TERRY, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. THOMPSON of California, Mr. KINZINGER of Illinois, Mr. AMODEI, and Mr. POMPEO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Select Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select)

---

A BILLTo provide for the sharing of certain cyber threat intelligence and cyber threat information between the intelligence community and cybersecurity entities, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011′.

SEC. 2. CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING.

(a) In General- Title XI of the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 442 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

`CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE AND INFORMATION SHARING

`Sec. 1104. (a) Intelligence Community Sharing of Cyber Threat Intelligence With Private Sector-

`(1) IN GENERAL- The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence.

`(2) SHARING AND USE OF CLASSIFIED INTELLIGENCE- The procedures established under paragraph (1) shall provide that classified cyber threat intelligence may only be–

`(A) shared by an element of the intelligence community with–

`(i) certified entities; or

`(ii) a person with an appropriate security clearance to receive such cyber threat intelligence;

`(B) shared consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States; and

`(C) used by a certified entity in a manner which protects such cyber threat intelligence from unauthorized disclosure.

`(3) SECURITY CLEARANCE APPROVALS- The Director of National Intelligence shall issue guidelines providing that the head of an element of the intelligence community may, as the head of such element considers necessary to carry out this subsection–

`(A) grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to an employee or officer of a certified entity;

`(B) grant a security clearance on a temporary or permanent basis to a certified entity and approval to use appropriate facilities; and

`(C) expedite the security clearance process for a person or entity as the head of such element considers necessary, consistent with the need to protect the national security of the United States.

`(4) NO RIGHT OR BENEFIT- The provision of information to a private-sector entity under this subsection shall not create a right or benefit to similar information by such entity or any other private-sector entity.

`(b) Private Sector Use of Cybersecurity Systems and Sharing of Cyber Threat Information-

`(1) IN GENERAL-

`(A) 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–

`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such protected entity; and

`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government.

`(B) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITIES- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a self-protected entity may, for cybersecurity purposes–

`(i) use cybersecurity systems to identify and obtain cyber threat information to protect the rights and property of such self-protected entity; and

`(ii) share such cyber threat information with any other entity, including the Federal Government.

`(2) USE AND PROTECTION OF INFORMATION- Cyber threat information shared in accordance with paragraph (1)–

`(A) shall only be shared in accordance with any restrictions placed on the sharing of such information by the protected entity or self-protected entity authorizing such sharing, including, if requested, appropriate anonymization or minimization of such information;

`(B) may not be used by an entity to gain an unfair competitive advantage to the detriment of the protected entity or the self-protected entity authorizing the sharing of information; and

`(C) if shared with the Federal Government–

`(i) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code;

`(ii) shall be considered proprietary information and shall not be disclosed to an entity outside of the Federal Government except as authorized by the entity sharing such information; and

`(iii) shall not be used by the Federal Government for regulatory purposes.

`(3) EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY- No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith–

`(A) for using cybersecurity systems or sharing information in accordance with this section; or

`(B) for not acting on information obtained or shared in accordance with this section.

`(4) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS REQUIRING THE DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION- The submission of information under this subsection to the Federal Government shall not satisfy or affect any requirement under any other provision of law for a person or entity to provide information to the Federal Government.

`(c) Report on Information Sharing- The Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board established under section 1061 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (5 U.S.C. 601 note) shall annually submit to Congress a report in unclassified form containing–

`(1) a review of the sharing and use of information by the Federal Government under this section and the procedures and guidelines established or issued by the Director of National Intelligence under subsection (a); and

`(2) any recommendations of the Board for improvements or modifications to such authorities to address privacy and civil liberties concerns.

`(d) Federal Preemption- This section supersedes any statute of a State or political subdivision of a State that restricts or otherwise expressly regulates an activity authorized under subsection (b).

`(e) Savings Clause- Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit any other authority to use a cybersecurity system or to identify, obtain, or share cyber threat intelligence or cyber threat information.

`(f) Definitions- In this section:

`(1) CERTIFIED ENTITY- The term `certified entity’ means a protected entity, self-protected entity, or cybersecurity provider that–

`(A) possesses or is eligible to obtain a security clearance, as determined by the Director of National Intelligence; and

`(B) is able to demonstrate to the Director of National Intelligence that such provider or such entity can appropriately protect classified cyber threat intelligence.

`(2) CYBER THREAT INTELLIGENCE- The term `cyber threat intelligence’ means information in the possession of an element of the intelligence community directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to, a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from–

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(3) CYBERSECURITY PROVIDER- The term `cybersecurity provider’ means a non-governmental entity that provides goods or services intended to be used for cybersecurity purposes.

`(4) CYBERSECURITY PURPOSE- The term `cybersecurity purpose’ means the purpose of ensuring the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguarding, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from–

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(5) CYBERSECURITY SYSTEM- The term `cybersecurity system’ means a system designed or employed to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, or availability of, or safeguard, a system or network, including protecting a system or network from–

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(6) CYBER THREAT INFORMATION- The term `cyber threat information’ means information directly pertaining to a vulnerability of, or threat to a system or network of a government or private entity, including information pertaining to the protection of a system or network from–

`(A) efforts to degrade, disrupt, or destroy such system or network; or

`(B) theft or misappropriation of private or government information, intellectual property, or personally identifiable information.

`(7) PROTECTED ENTITY- The term `protected entity’ means an entity, other than an individual, that contracts with a cybersecurity provider for goods or services to be used for cybersecurity purposes.

`(8) SELF-PROTECTED ENTITY- The term `self-protected entity’ means an entity, other than an individual, that provides goods or services for cybersecurity purposes to itself.’.

(b) Procedures and Guidelines- The Director of National Intelligence shall–

(1) not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, establish procedures under paragraph (1) of section 1104(a) of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this section, and issue guidelines under paragraph (3) of such section 1104(a); and

(2) following the establishment of such procedures and the issuance of such guidelines, expeditiously distribute such procedures and such guidelines to appropriate Federal Government and private-sector entities.

(c) Initial Report- The first report required to be submitted under subsection (c) of section 1104 of the National Security Act of 1947, as added by subsection (a) of this section, shall be submitted not later than one year after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(d) Table of Contents Amendment- The table of contents in the first section of such Act is amended by adding at the end the following new item:

`Sec. 1104. Cyber threat intelligence and information sharing.’.

 

if you donate every last dollar will go to spreading the word about CISPA – I’ve been at it now for 6 hours and will give all my free time until I see this through.

Who Sponsored CISPA

Here’s the enemy’s you guys.   Full addresses and contact information is readily available and will soon be posted on this site.  These people need a visit from some disgruntled people with pitch forks.

Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] – 11/30/2011
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] – 2/27/2012
Rep Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] – 11/30/2011
Rep Bachus, Spencer [AL-6] – 2/16/2012
Rep Bartlett, Roscoe G. [MD-6] – 3/29/2012
Rep Benishek, Dan [MI-1] – 2/13/2012
Rep Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] – 3/29/2012
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 3/5/2012
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] – 2/16/2012
Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU] – 3/19/2012
Rep Boren, Dan [OK-2] – 11/30/2011
Rep Boswell, Leonard L. [IA-3] – 2/28/2012
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] – 2/7/2012
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] – 2/13/2012
Rep Burgess, Michael C. [TX-26] – 11/30/2011
Rep Calvert, Ken [CA-44] – 11/30/2011
Rep Camp, Dave [MI-4] – 12/16/2011
Rep Cardoza, Dennis A. [CA-18] – 3/29/2012
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 2/7/2012
Rep Chandler, Ben [KY-6] – 11/30/2011
Rep Coffman, Mike [CO-6] – 1/18/2012
Rep Cole, Tom [OK-4] – 2/1/2012
Rep Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] – 11/30/2011
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] – 3/22/2012
Rep Costa, Jim [CA-20] – 3/29/2012
Rep Crawford, Eric A. “Rick” [AR-1] – 3/8/2012
Rep Davis, Geoff [KY-4] – 2/14/2012
Rep Dicks, Norman D. [WA-6] – 11/30/2011
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] – 12/20/2011
Rep Fleischmann, Charles J. “Chuck” [TN-3] – 2/27/2012
Rep Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] – 1/25/2012
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-2] – 3/19/2012
Rep Frelinghuysen, Rodney P. [NJ-11] – 12/8/2011
Rep Gingrey, Phil [GA-11] – 11/30/2011
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 1/18/2012
Rep Griffith, H. Morgan [VA-9] – 3/29/2012
Rep Grimm, Michael G. [NY-13] – 2/13/2012
Rep Guthrie, Brett [KY-2] – 2/13/2012
Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] – 11/30/2011
Rep Hartzler, Vicky [MO-4] – 2/7/2012
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] – 3/5/2012
Rep Hastings, Doc [WA-4] – 2/14/2012
Rep Heck, Joseph J. [NV-3] – 11/30/2011
Rep Huizenga, Bill [MI-2] – 2/7/2012
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] – 3/5/2012
Rep Hurt, Robert [VA-5] – 3/5/2012
Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49] – 1/31/2012
Rep Johnson, Bill [OH-6] – 3/8/2012
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] – 11/30/2011
Rep Kinzinger, Adam [IL-11] – 11/30/2011
Rep Kissell, Larry [NC-8] – 3/29/2012
Rep Kline, John [MN-2] – 2/16/2012
Rep Lance, Leonard [NJ-7] – 2/14/2012
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] – 11/30/2011
Rep Larsen, Rick [WA-2] – 3/19/2012
Rep Latta, Robert E. [OH-5] – 12/8/2011
Rep LoBiondo, Frank A. [NJ-2] – 11/30/2011
Rep McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] – 11/30/2011
Rep McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] – 12/8/2011
Rep McIntyre, Mike [NC-7] – 3/29/2012
Rep McKinley, David B. [WV-1] – 1/18/2012
Rep McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [WA-5] – 1/18/2012
Rep Meehan, Patrick [PA-7] – 2/14/2012
Rep Michaud, Michael H. [ME-2] – 12/20/2011
Rep Miller, Candice S. [MI-10] – 2/13/2012
Rep Miller, Gary G. [CA-42] – 1/31/2012
Rep Miller, Jeff [FL-1] – 11/30/2011
Rep Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] – 11/30/2011
Rep Noem, Kristi L. [SD] – 2/28/2012
Rep Nunes, Devin [CA-21] – 11/30/2011
Rep Olson, Pete [TX-22] – 2/16/2012
Rep Owens, William L. [NY-23] – 3/29/2012
Rep Peterson, Collin C. [MN-7] – 3/29/2012
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] – 3/22/2012
Rep Pompeo, Mike [KS-4] – 11/30/2011
Rep Quayle, Benjamin [AZ-3] – 12/8/2011
Rep Roe, David P. [TN-1] – 2/27/2012
Rep Rogers, Mike D. [AL-3] – 2/13/2012
Rep Rooney, Thomas J. [FL-16] – 11/30/2011
Rep Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18] – 1/18/2012
Rep Ross, Mike [AR-4] – 3/22/2012
Rep Runyan, Jon [NJ-3] – 3/22/2012
Rep Ruppersberger, C. A. Dutch [MD-2] – 11/30/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 3/29/2012
Rep Schock, Aaron [IL-18] – 2/16/2012
Rep Shimkus, John [IL-19] – 11/30/2011
Rep Shuler, Heath [NC-11] – 3/29/2012
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] – 2/16/2012
Rep Sires, Albio [NJ-13] – 3/19/2012
Rep Smith, Adrian [NE-3] – 3/8/2012
Rep Stearns, Cliff [FL-6] – 1/31/2012
Rep Stivers, Steve [OH-15] – 3/29/2012
Rep Sullivan, John [OK-1] – 1/18/2012
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 11/30/2011
Rep Thompson, Mike [CA-1] – 11/30/2011
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] – 3/19/2012
Rep Turner, Michael R. [OH-3] – 2/1/2012
Rep Upton, Fred [MI-6] – 11/30/2011
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] – 12/16/2011
Rep Walden, Greg [OR-2] – 11/30/2011
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] – 11/30/2011
Rep Wilson, Joe [SC-2] – 3/29/2012
Rep Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1] – 3/1/2012
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] – 1/25/2012
Rep Woodall, Rob [GA-7] – 3/29/2012
Rep Yoder, Kevin [KS-3] – 12/8/2011

 

Stop CISPA Let not our new Library of Alexandria Burn!

The Grand Library of Alexandria; so timeless that still, to this day its loss hurts people to the soul.  If this library would not have burned to the ground along with most of its works – this would be a completely different place today.  If this information would have lasted; and been built upon from that time we would be far more advanced than we are today.

This grand library was burned for one simple purpose; to undo the people of this new rising culture, that would have freed humanity from the deception of Roman philosophy.  It was no accident but was presented as such to avoid ridicule from the most noble families.  We are re-living this now with CISPA. If this bill is passed, it will accidently on purpose burn our wondrous library just the same as Alexandra.  Our library now rivals that of Alexandria, and  If we allow this to happen every last one of us is responsible.

I always told myself that if I ever could go back in time and give my life for a cause I would have done this to try to save the great library.  Now is our chance; we must protect the internet at all cost for it is our way to a better humanity.  If this bill passes it will threaten our internet as a whole because it will attack it at its foundation (its philosophy) that information is free and ANYONE rich or poor has the luxury to access its wonders.

For all of you that are thinking to yourselves… Well if someone is scared about internet security than they are doing something they probably shouldn’t… but in-fact this is the silliest thought you could ever have;  because not a day goes by that you are perfectly legal in your internet activities according to this new bill.

Wikipedia would be under 1,000’s of violations, YouTube as well.  In-fact every single place you visit on the internet will be in danger from this bill.  If they don’t like you – they can shut your site down.  If you say something that pisses them off – they can shut your site down.  But what’s even worse than this is that you will be legally accountable – punishable by imprisonment for just an accusation.  Think the patriot act was bad? Well this will be 10x’s worse.   Talk about policing the world – how much in taxes do you think you will have to pay for this new system?  Even worse you will be building your own cross so to speak – because even after you pay for this new system to be implemented they will use it to crucify you.  So no I will not back down, I will not shut up, I pledge myself to this noble cause to fight tyranny and fight for my fellow human.  I urge you to do the same.  If there is any cause worth fighting for its information and this is the time to start the fight.

Help getting face book to back down like Godady.com did last time and we will be ok.  This bill will never pass but if facebook herds the people it will pass with flying colors – Stop for one moment.  Stop being a Sheep for long enough to fight back and at least claim victory to one small battle.  Your kids will thank you if you stand up and shout!

Right here, right now.

Thank you for your thoughts and support