Please see below.
At the least, click this link to sign the petition to STOP CISPA!
See the action list below (Credit to reddit user LastPriority)
Step One. Sign this petition. Make sure to Share on Twitter and Facebook. Avaaz Petition.Link
Step Two Call your representative. One of these methods. EFF Message your representativeor Call your congressional representatives and urge them to vote against CISPA or Contact Congress
You can also send him a personal email Zip code for MI 8th district is: 48346
Step Four Appeal directly to the president. He already does not approve of the bill. Let’s make sure we say we agree. We the people petition. LINK
Step Five Make note of these companies. Here is a list of companies. It is big though. link
More Extra Credit Tweeting @barakobama__ with something like this: Commit to a veto on CISPA or lose my vote. #CISPA #StopCISPA #Obama2012
Share this Great Image Explanation and
Youtube video. Link
News on CISPA
I felt this comment needed it’s own thread. I took it from this guy. Link
Reddit we need to understand that we are an open community which means there are people posting in these threads that are paid to spin the conversation away from the real issue. It is causing us to waffel on the issue at hand. If you have nothing to add to the conversation then please don’t post so we can see those individuals that are spinning the conversation. Otherwise do everything you can activist wise to help our cause. No cynics, pessimists, detractors please.
CISPA could allow any private company to share vast amounts of sensitive, private data about its customers with the government.
CISPA would override all other federal and state privacy laws, and allow a private company to share nearly anything—from the contents of private emails and Internet browsing history to medical, educational and financial records—as long as it “directly pertains to” a “cyber threat,” which is broadly defined.
CISPA does not require that data shared with the government be stripped of unnecessary personally-identifiable information. A private company may choose to anonymize the data it shares with the government. However, there is no requirement that it does so—even when personally-identifiable information is unnecessary for cybersecurity measures. For example, emails could be shared with the full names of their authors and recipients. A company could decide to leave the names of its customers in the data it shares with the government merely because it does not want to incur the expense of deleting them. This is contrary to the recommendations of the House Republican Cybersecurity Task Force and other bills to authorize information sharing, which require companies to make a reasonable effort to minimize the sharing of personally-identifiable information.
CISPA would allow the government to use collected private information for reasons other than cybersecurity. The government could use any information it receives for “any lawful purpose” besides “regulatory purposes,” so long as the same use can also be justified by cybersecurity or the protection of national security. This would provide no meaningful limit—a government official could easily create a connection to “national security” to justify nearly any type of investigation.
CISPA would give Internet Service Providers free rein to monitor the private communications and activities of users on their networks. ISPs would have wide latitude to do anything that can be construed as part of a “cybersecurity system,” regardless of any other privacy or telecommunications law.
CISPA would empower the military and the National Security Agency (NSA) to collect information about domestic Internet users. Other information sharing bills would direct private information from domestic sources to civilian agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security. CISPA contains no such limitation. Instead, the Department of Defense and the NSA could solicit and receive information directly from American companies, about users and systems inside the United States.
CISPA places too much faith in private companies, to safeguard their most sensitive customer data from government intrusion. While information sharing would be voluntary under CISPA, the government has a variety of ways to pressure private companies to share large volumes of customer information. With complete legal immunity, private companies have few clear incentives to resist such pressure. There is also no requirement that companies ever tell their customers what they have shared with the government, either before or after the fact. As informed consumers, Americans expect technology companies to have clear privacy policies, telling us exactly how and when the company will use and share our personal data, so that we can make informed choices about which companies have earned our trust and deserve our business.
**copy pasted from the above linked PDF
CISPA really is the Big Brother law.
First Occupy Portland-Related Trial Presents A Unique Challenge For The State
By Adam Rothstein
At 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 17, Jonathan Zook sat down in the courtroom of Judge Karin Immergut, to witness the selection of a jury of his peers–the first jury for an Occupy-related court case in Portland. Zook is charged with resisting arrest, disorderly conduct in the second degree, interfering with an officer, and assault in the fourth degree, all stemming from his arrest on December 17 during an anti-NDAA march. Like many of the pre-trial motions and hearings that have been part and parcel of the Occupy Portland arrestees’ due process, jury selection was plodding, lasting most of the day. But through this process, much was revealed about the public’s impression of Occupy Portland, and what might take place when Occupiers are finally, at long last, judged by their peers.
Twenty-three prospective jurors were brought into the courtroom, to be whittled down to a final jury of six. From the very beginning it was clear how vital the process of jury selection, or voir dire, is to a trial. It is during this questioning of the potential candidates by the judge and the defense and prosecution lawyers that biases are exposed, and a fair and impartial jury is built, person by person.
The surprise was that, unlike some depictions of Occupy Portland in corporate media, the sympathies of Portland’s citizens were very much with the Occupiers. At the onset of questioning, Judge Immergut asked if anyone thought the subject matter would prevent them from making an impartial decision. Three hands immediately went up, all from candidates who admitted a heavy bias in favor of Occupy Portland. Two individuals said they knew people involved with Occupy Portland, and, regardless of police testimony, they wouldn’t be able to discount what they knew to be true from speaking to their friends and co-workers. Another person was even more vigorous in asserting this position and did not mince words. “All the witnesses for the prosecution are police officers,” she said. “ I’ve seen this too many times. I can’t trust them to be honest.” These three candidates were excused.
The more Machiavellian observer might contemplate the merits of Occupy Portland supporters keeping their partisanship under wraps, to thus sneak a favorable vote onto the jury. But if anything, Occupiers value honesty to a fault. Another candidate–when asked if he could find a defendant guilty of an infraction that he felt, ethically, should not be a crime–replied in no uncertain terms, “absolutely not”. This is, after all, why Occupiers and their supporters Occupy. They see the dark side of the “legal”, the malfunctioning of the government and the economic system, and they know that despite the approval of the ruling class, the system is ethically wrong, and must be stopped. This man also was excused.
Every potential juror was aware of Occupy Portland. There were a few who acted blase, saying that they either avoided reading news about Occupy, or tried to stay away from downtown during the encampment period. None of them claimed to be Occupiers, nor had they taken part in the protests. And yet, the harshest direct criticism heard from jury candidates was that they “saw both sides of the argument equally”. If ever there was a random Portland poll geared toward judging whether Occupy had an overall positive effect in the minds of average citizens, this was it. And the result was a resounding thumbs up.
Perhaps Occupy Portland is lucky to be in Portland, with a history of civil disobedience, and a population that understands its positive effects. Certainly such supportive juror candidates couldn’t be had in every city. When the prosecutor asked, “Do you agree that sometimes it is okay to resist arrest?” a retired college professor asked a question in response that might have come straight from a Movement Building forum at Occupy Portland. “Well, what do you mean by ‘resisting’ arrest?” She went on to say that she thought that going limp, and passively resisting, is a valid form of civil disobedience. The prosecutor, apparently looking to find the means to excuse more sympathetic candidates, asked if anyone else concurred. Seven people unhesitatingly raised their hands. Seeing that he clearly couldn’t excuse a third of the candidates at once, he simply went on to the next question.
Finally, six people from the room were picked to judge if Jonathan is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of what he stands accused of by the District Attorney and the Portland Police Bureau. The jurors spent the rest of the afternoon with their heads bowed, furiously taking notes on the testimony of two police officers, who, from the perspective of this journalist, clearly remembered that Jonathan Zook broke the law, but “couldn’t recall” much else. With the activists of Occupy Portland facing down the massive resources of these persecutory branches of so-called “government”, this journalist has never been sure that our legal system approximated anything close to “justice”. But at least I was reassured that the people of Portland remember what justice is, and, despite the roulette wheel of voir dire, they aren’t afraid to raise their hands and express it.
Check out an article written by #OOSU’s own Eric Coker!
Student Debt: Students Demand Change from Oregon Board of Higher Education
Our institutions of higher education are now havens for private banks to extract wealth from the 99%. Student debt has skyrocketed to over a trillion dollars. More and more young adults cannot afford to pay back their student loans.
The average Oregon University System student leaves school with roughly $24,000 in student debt. The value of a degree is worth less due to a lack of jobs and reduced real wages. Over the past decade, the sum of tuition and fees in the Oregon University System has essentially doubled, outpacing the rate of inflation.
At the same time, national funding for higher education, after adjusting for inflation, has been reduced over $100 million during the past decade. Students in the Oregon University System have a list of demands for the Board of Higher Education. We intend to force the Board to listen to us. We need to make them aware of our struggles, and we need to present them and the tax-paying public with our solutions.
Why is this necessary? The health status of higher education has reached critical condition and the system is on life support. Young adults are the collateral damage wrought from a punishing system of debt enslavement and free market brainwashing. Oregon universities are increasingly catering to the wishes and demands of corporations and rich donors, not the demands of students. Public institutions are increasingly competing with corrupt private low-quality and for-profit colleges. We students are the sole reason why the higher education system exists in the first place. This system has failed us.
The out-of-touch administrators of Colleges and the Oregon University System’s board members apparently don’t care about these hard facts. However students do have the collective power to demand and force change. Students in the University of California system are facing similar challenges in their higher education system and they are fighting back. They are showing up at the UC system Board of Regents meetings. It’s time that Oregon University System students do the same.
The demands of Oregon students I have been working with are as follows:
1. We need a solution to ending tuition and all student fee increases. A moratorium on all increasing costs should be established. The increase in costs for students are not justified by capitalist market inflation rates, or even the Oregon University System (OUS) operating budget.
2. The quality of instruction, especially as it relates to student instructor ratios, must improve to alleviate crowded classrooms. The instructor incentive structure, particularly with regard to the increasing emphasis on research, serving on committees, and graduate education, needs to be addressed — such factors currently reduce the quality of instruction.
3. Staff furloughs must end, cost-of-living increases are needed for front-line staff, and there must be a freeze for all top-level administrator pay. Instruction costs are clearly not driving tuition and fee costs, and students and staff are essentially subsidizing ever increasing costs associated with an elite administrator class. Administrators are overvalued and staff are undervalued, all at the expense of students. Policy and spending priorities should reflect the reality that workers deserve a living wage, students are the reason public universities exist, and that promoting inequality is anathema to public institutional goals.
4. The decision making process for the OUS budget and in setting tuition and fees must include more transparency, along with more horizontal democracy.
5. All Oregon universities must recognize all graduate student employees as part of the graduate employee union.
6. The disturbing trend of the privatization of public higher education must end. For example, private bank student loans showed the highest increase among all forms of student methods of payment over the past year, yet the state has no plan to stop increasing dependence on private loans for their students. Furthermore, the influence of corporations and private donors in determining OUS’s priorities are unethical and fails to align with the interests or demands of students and society.
University students in Oregon are asking for Occupiers to stand in solidarity with us behind these demands. Contactmembers of the Board. Attend their meetings. If you are moved by this call to action please feel free to contact Eric Coker at firstname.lastname@example.org.