The House Committee on Rules has been debating CISPA and what will be covered in the official floor debate and what amendments will be presented tomorrow or the next day (whenever it hits the floor). Much of it was routine stuff, but there were some typical bogus grandstanding about the giant threat of a cyberattack that's going to kill us all (be afraid!) if we don't do something (no worry about if that something will actually help). Representative Mike Rogers, the sponsor of CISPA and its main backer, decided that he was going to take the lowest road possible in talking about the concerns of privacy advocates by saying that the only opposition is "14-year-olds in their basement." That statement followed the claim that "Silicon Valley CEOs support CISPA."

Update: Sina Khanifer has uploaded a video of Rogers making these comments. This is insulting on a whole variety of levels. First of all, it suggests that privacy advocates are nothing more than children. That's ridiculous. The White House, who have raised privacy concerns about the bill, are 14-year-olds in their basement? Rogers honestly thinks insulting the President is the way to get CISPA passed? The ACLU are 14-year-olds in their basement? Really? The tens of thousands of people who have contacted Congress in the past few weeks about this are all 14-year-olds in their basement? Rogers owes the public he represents a massive apology.

Second, the comment about Silicon Valley CEOs is not true. Yes, there are some tech companies who are in favor of CISPA, mainly because of the liability protections they would get. But it is hardly an across the board belief. Many, many tech companies are all quite concerned about CISPA and what it will mean for the privacy of their users. Both Mozilla and Reddit have strongly spoken out against CISPA. Do they not count?

Third, the idea that because some Silicon Valley CEOs support CISPA, it means that there couldn't possibly be any concern. This is a outgrowth of the myth that SOPA was only stopped because tech companies spoke out. As such, politicians like Rogers think all they need to do is appease tech CEOs, and not the public, whom they're supposed to represent. That Rogers would so outwardly admit that as long as a small group of tech CEOs favor the bill (which is already a highly questionable statement), that he can ignore the public and insult them, is really stunning.

Of course, what this really shows is Rep. Mike Rogers' absolute disdain for privacy. He doesn't take the concerns of the public, of privacy advocates, and even of the White House seriously. Instead, he sees privacy as something that should be mocked and those who support it insulted. Why should such a person be in charge of wiping out privacy laws on the internet?

It appears that SOPA sponsor Rep. Lamar Smith has decided that his best strategy continues to be to ignore any and all criticism of SOPA and pretend that none of it "is legitimate." That's kinda funny since we've shown, in great detail, where many of the problems in the bill are (see here, here and here for example -- all of which cite specific language from the bill). And yet, according to Smith:

"The criticism of this bill is completely hypothetical; none of it is based in reality," Smith said in a statement to Roll Call. "Not one of the critics was able to point to any language in the bill that would in any way harm the Internet. Their accusations are simply not supported by any facts."

We've done exactly what he's claimed we haven't -- as have numerous other parties, including famed Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, who also cited specific language in the bill. Ditto with former DHS Assistant Secretary, Stewart Baker, who also cited language from the bill about how SOPA will cause significant security problems for the internet.

It makes you wonder: just who does Lamar Smith think he's fooling?

Does he really think that if he just keeps on repeating these blatant lies someone, somewhere, will believe them?

From there, he goes from the ridiculous to the absurd by claiming that the widespread outcry over SOPA is just a "vocal minority," rather than any legitimate movement against the bill:

"It’s a vocal minority, he said. "Because they’re strident doesn’t mean they’re either legitimate or large in number. One, they need to read the language. Show me the language. There’s nothing they can point to that does what they say it does do. I think their fears are unfounded."

Hundreds of thousands of letters sent? Nearly 90,000 calls in a single day? This is not a "vocal minority." This is a large and growing segment of the population who is very, very concerned. And, they have shown him the language, contrary to his blatantly false claims. Dismissing the concerns of pretty much the entire tech sector and their users (not to mention the folks over at Reddit...) doesn't seem wise. It seems like someone who doesn't understand the internet, not just in trying to regulate it, but in how the internet can be used to rally support against those who seek to damage it.

Over the last few years, we've followed the ongoing efforts of gov't officials to figure out the whole "blogging" thing. It started off poorly with gov't officials insulting bloggers and trying to pass a law that would have required all bloggers to register with the government. After that failed, the ruling party looked, for a bit, as if it might be trying to understand and embrace blogs. It set up an agency just to respond to blogs and even told certain of its own candidates for office that they needed to blog themselves. However, apparently it was the opposition party that embraced blogging much more -- and even a few of the bigger name bloggers got themselves elected. In response? The government demanded that ISPs block certain blogs, including the very popular Malaysia Today.

The latest news is that the government has rescinded the ban... but has arrested the site's founder. That doesn't seem like the best way to get bloggers on their side. It never fails to amaze me why politicians seek to shut up those who oppose them. What's wrong with actually responding and letting people understand the multiple positions? If you're confident that your position is the correct one, then why not convince people that's the case?