Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act

April 12th, 2012 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: around the nation, Hot Topics, Limited Government, Regulations, Uncategorized No Responses
Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act

From ZDnet.com-

SOPA and PIPA were about intellectual property, and allowed courts to remove DNS listings for any website hosting pirated content. CISPA is meanwhile about security, and makes it possible for companies to share user information with the U.S. government (and vice versa) if the parties believe it is needed for the greater cyber security good.

As with many bills, CISPA has room for abuse. It “means a company like Google, Facebook, Twitter, or AT&T could intercept your emails and text messages, send copies to one another and to the government, and modify those communications or prevent them from reaching their destination if it fits into their plan to stop ‘cybersecurity’ threats,” an EFF spokesperson said in a statement. “Worst of all, the stated definition of ‘cybersecurity purpose’ is so broad that it leaves the door open to censor any speech that a company believes would ‘degrade the network.’”

That’s the main point, but CISPA also includes portions about protecting intellectual property, reminding many of SOPA and PIPA. If an IP thief is considered a threat to cyber security, then his website, or where he posted the content, could technically be blocked by CISPA. If a government agency believed you were planning a cyber attack, and were discussing it on Facebook, it could ask the social networking giant for every piece of information about you.

Facebook could, of course, say no. That’s important to emphasize. The bill would not force Facebook to hand over all the data it normally does when it legally has to (Here’s what Facebook sends the cops in response to a subpoena).

“Parts of the proposed legislation specifically state that cybersecurity purpose includes protecting against the ‘theft or misappropriation of private or government information’ including ‘intellectual property,’” an EFF spokesperson said in a statement. “Such sweeping language would give companies and the government new powers to monitor and censor communications for copyright infringement. It could also be a powerful weapon to use against whistleblower websites like WikiLeaks.”

CISPA currently has over 100 co-sponsors in Congress and 28 corporate supporters (full list), one of which is Facebook. I asked Facebook for a statement regarding its support, but the company declined to comment on this article. Instead, a spokesperson pointed me to Facebook’s letter about the bill (PDF).

read the full article —-

READ THE 11 PAGE BILL (pdf)

———————————————————————-

Additional reading for the curious: The Coming Age of Internetocracy: “Internetocracy is a new political movement whose mission is to empower each citizen to directly table and decide legislation by enabling them through social networking, personal broadcasting, and other internet technologies.”
(NC TEA Party is not endorsing this movement.)

Obamacare at the Supreme Court: Day Three Summary

March 29th, 2012 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: around the nation, Health Care Reform, Hot Topics, Limited Government, Regulations No Responses

The Court’s morning session concentrated on whether, if the individual mandate is held unconstitutional (as looks increasingly likely after yesterday’s argument), it can be cleanly severed from the rest of ObamaCare, and if not, what other portions of the act must the Court strike down with it.

The Court’s afternoon session focused on whether Congress’s conditions on the states to continue to participate in the Medicaid program were constitutionally coercive. The two sessions were largely distinct but had some overlapping aspects.

Parents Speak Out Against NC Nutrition Rules At Hearing

March 1st, 2012 by NC Tea Party Staff Categories: Education, Hot Topics, Limited Government, Other Videos, Regulations, State, Uncategorized No Responses
Parents Speak Out Against NC Nutrition Rules At Hearing

There was a hearing this week concerning the deliberate exemption of parental personal choice regarding the state’s child care nutrition rules this week.

“The NC Child Care Commission is a group of fifteen members appointed by the Governor and state legislators, and is tasked with adopting rules to implement state laws regarding child care.

In July of 2010 the legislature passed a bill (H1726) affecting nutrition standards for child care facilities, which would include NC Pre-K programs. The law, signed by Gov. Bev Perdue, required the commission to consider “creating an exception from the rules to allow a parent or guardian, or to allow the center upon the request of a parent or guardian, to provide to a child food and beverages that may not meet the nutrition standards.”

The staff of the Division of Child Development and Early Education drew up some nutrition rules in May 2011 for the NC Child Care Commission to consider. The commission discussed the proposed rules at a September 27, 2011 meeting. The minutes of that meeting show the commission members talked about allowing parents to make a “personal preference” for the food their children eat at school, including what they bring from home. According to the minutes, the commission’s attorney, Alexi Gruber from the Department of Justice, advised the members such preferences should supersede any nutrition rule.

The panel went against that advice, however, and deleted the word “personal” from the recommendation. The only exception left was for ethnic, religious or cultural reasons. The new rule cited a vegetarian diet as an example of the exception.”

(read full article)

Here is one parent speaking at the hearing this week:

from Civitas Review:

“Dr. Scott Sweeney of Monroe said he had nine other people ready to object to the proposed rules changes and send the issue to the General Assembly for a hearing. Once the Child Care Commission makes its final decision on the rules it goes to the Rules Review Commission in the Office of Administrative Hearings. When that panel makes its decision if at least 10 people object to a rule then the rule is subject to a legislative hearing.

The Child Care Commission chair said the public comments would be considered during its meeting May 8.”

Se also: “Who’s Policing the Food Police?”

Who Is Policing the Food Police?

February 23rd, 2012 by scarlett Categories: Hot Topics, Limited Government, Regulations, Uncategorized One Response
Who Is Policing the Food Police?

I saw this article concerning “Nugget-Gate” and thought, if more people would just realize this, the better off this county would be. The highlights, (in an effort to respect your time):

“Furthermore, it is admirable that the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services has rules requiring all pre-K programs serve nutritious meals according to USDA standards — but those guidelines and suggestions should end where the role of the parent begins.

It is as if some of those in leadership genuinely believe they know better than we do what is best for our kids. They don’t. With that in mind, it is reasonable to assume that USDA-recommended lunches served by schools may or may not be healthy — simply because officials haven’t a clue what kids consume before and after school. Giving a child a school meal that was designed as a prototypical meal for the general population could, in reality, be a recipe for obesity based on an individual’s overall eating habits.

Inspector Tubby’s actions should serve to remind us how well-meaning rules or guidelines become grotesquely out-of-whack when the government sees fit to meddle in matters deemed personal. What was meant to help us hurts us when the government casts out a rule “for the greater good” and individuals get swallowed-up in the process.”

I agree with this 100%. To take it further, some people have specific personal guidelines they eat by, that do not mesh with the USDA. What happens the day a state inspector/agent comes by, and a child is given something to eat that does not agree with the family’s personal eating habits– and the child ends up sick as a result of that? The government has already taken steps to intimidate people who are concerned where their food comes from, with the new term “food terrorists“. Can we be sure that families will not be singled out by not allowing their children to eat exactly the way the state says they should, based on these new rules? Will parents and children be required to undergo psychological evaluations to be diagnosed with “orthorexia nervosa” = healthy eating disorder, if they push the envelope?

“Like” (and share) this on Facebook if you agree!

Sam’s Big Government Backpack

February 10th, 2012 by scarlett Categories: Hot Topics, Limited Government, Other Videos, Regulations No Responses
Sam’s Big Government Backpack

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) explains how big government is making it harder for Americans to find jobs and more difficult for small businesses to succeed. When big government puts too many burdens on America’s economy, it forces jobs and investment overseas instead of here at home. It also makes it harder for middle class small business owners to compete against large corporations, discouraging real competition and job growth.

Here’s a list of some of the obstacles that big government has created that make it harder to achieve success in America:

– $1.75 trillion regulatory costs
– $15 trillion national debt
– $2 to $3 trillion in state and local debt (http://bit.ly/zQwqfb)
– $100 trillion unfunded liabilities for entitlement programs
– ObamaCare taxes and regulations
– More than 75,000 pages of IRS tax rules & regulations (http://bit.ly/ejX73Z)