CISPA Sponsor Tweets, Then Deletes, About How Much More Lobbying Dollars Have Come From Pro-CISPA Groups
from the read-before-you-retweet dept
Ah, transparency. The Sunlight Foundation put together Politwoops last year to highlight tweets that elected officials deleted. Mostly it’s innocuous stuff, but sometimes some real gems come through. For example, the account of Rep. Mike Rogers, who is the main Representative behind CISPA, retweeted but then deleted a MapLight tweet about how the House Intelligence Committee, which Rogers chairs, “received 15 times more from pro-CISPA groups than anti-CISPA orgs.” You can see MapLight’s data here.
Update: Oh, and it gets better. Rogers has been using the hashtag #CISPAalert in a bunch of his tweets in support of CISPA. But that hashtag was set up by the EFF, and every tweet that uses that hashtag helps fund the EFF in its fight against CISPA.
Rogers (R-Mich.)’s official Twitter account has, since Wednesday, been using the hashtag #CISPAalert to address criticism of his Cyber Intelligence Security Protection Act (CISPA). Activists are wrong, he says. CISPA wouldn’t allow government “monitoring anyone’s email or personal information.”
But the congressman—or whoever runs his Twitter account—doesn’t seem to have gotten the memo. A domain name registrar called Namecheap is running a promotion: offering a dollar to Internet activists at the Electronic Frontier Foundation for each tweet with that hashtag. The EFF is actively campaigning against CISPA, calling it a “privacy-invading cybersecurity spying bill.”
I’m sure once CISPA is in place, Rogers will figure out this Twitter stuff.
Filed Under: cispa, house intelligence committee, lobbying dollars, mike rogers, politwoops, transparency
Comments on “CISPA Sponsor Tweets, Then Deletes, About How Much More Lobbying Dollars Have Come From Pro-CISPA Groups”
I’m just going to pretend that “15x” means they got $15, and not $1.
Because I have to wonder what kind of people are giving this bill money.
The government doesn’t need to fund its own laws. They just break them regardless.
Re: Re:
I’m just going to pretend that “15x” means they got $15, and not $1.
x means times or multiplication. So however much they got in opposition to CISPA, they got 15 times that much in support of it.
For any of us TD readers and the more informed people this is not a surprise at all. I do find the “15x” figure interesting though. How much do the MAFIAA spend in lobbying for worse copyright laws versus those who represent the public? I’ll bet the difference is much, much bigger.
Re: Re:
Google and their shadowy front groups outspend the MPAA and RIAA combined.
Re: Re: Re:
Well of course. Movies never make a profit while Google does, so naturally Google outspends the MPAA.
it also shows the lengths companies will go to to get their hands on government ‘security’ contracts, because i’ll bet that’s where most of the contributions came from.
Ah, transparency.
That’s funny coming from you.
Re: Re:
And wherwe has Mike not been trasparent? The only accusations of non disclosure I remember invovled the sky is rising report but Mike had already disclosed who paid for that BEFORE the accusations started
Re: Re:
I agree, Mike is totally opaque WRT how he spends taxpayer’s money!
Re: Re:
Did you break all the mirrors in your compound?
Government no longer represents the people
I was just arguing with a friend that our senators and representatives have all been bought and sold. This only helps confirm my argument.
Congress is nothing more than an illusion show.
Thanks for this “little gem”.
Re: Government no longer represents the people
I agree and I look forward to their Fall and their Tar & Feathering.
I do not look forward to a Mad Max World but I do dislike this Government and I say honestly they have had it coming for Decades now.So I look forward to their fall from Grace.
We will not be forgetting who they are.They will not want to be around when that one happens.
Re: Government no longer represents the people
Congress works like a marketplace: If you spend enough on lobbying, you can buy any law. Actually it is exactly like a stock exchange where the companies monetary commitment is what determines the price of a law. The more public interest, the higher the price for the industry at odds!
Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
You’re all for “transparency”, right? Or only when you see some passing cheap shot to score for your notions?
And by the way, inquiring minds STILL wonder who funded your DC trip to stop SOPA.
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where fanboys assert that multi-billion industries are doing it all wrong!
07:43:43[i-850-7]
Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
“”Or only when you see some passing cheap shot to score for your notions?””
That being said from someone who does the same in passing cheap shots for his notions in his comments on here now that is priceless.
Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
I know you! Quit copying me!!
Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike sez: uploader + file host + links site + downloader = perfectly “legal” symbiotic piracy.
08:52:05[j-38-18]
Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Just a quick note to the FAKE out_of_the_blue:
My posts with tag line now include an automatically added GMT time stamp. So that’s the first thing you need to get right: it’s a trivial check for my convenience. The rest is by an algorithm that you’re not too likely to deduce. In any event, your putting effort into it goes beyond any reasonable free speech into deliberate fraud.
Oh, and by the way, the real out_of_the_blue will never say quit copying me.
And I again call on Mike to expose this fraud.
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
“My posts with tag line now include an automatically added GMT time stamp.”
Funny, that post didn’t have a time stamp… so which out_of_the_blue is the real one???
Re: Re: Re:2 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Sorry, I forgot it that time. Here you go.
Get involved with keeping the internet free and open. Check out http://techdirt.com/
09:52:05[j-38-18]
Re: Re: Re:3 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Cool, nobody’s ever going to be able to break that DRM.
Re: Re: Re:3 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
So you have a timestamp and a code so you can know if it really is your post or an imposter but no one else will ever be able to tell the difference if I just make one up?
Another brilliant plan blue.
00:10:12[I-D1-0T]
Re: Re: Re:3 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Brilliant minion!
You are a genius I say.
10:00:05[j-ack-ass]
Re: Re: Re:3 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Why not just get an account? It’s not like you couldn’t use a disposable email address or anything. Seriously, it’s like the content controllers jumping around doing mad DRM schemes and convoluted Ultravacuous technology instead of just doing the simple and straightforward thing!
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
My posts with tag line now include an automatically added GMT time stamp. So that’s the first thing you need to get right: it’s a trivial check for my convenience. The rest is by an algorithm that you’re not too likely to deduce.
Simply to satiate my own morbid curiosity:
Why? What is the point to your silly timestamps? Anyone can duplicate something similar anytime they wish to. You are using an unregistered moniker and no ever gave you any assurances that someone else couldn’t use it too. What exactly are you trying to prove?
In any event, your putting effort into it goes beyond any reasonable free speech into deliberate fraud.
Once again, you are being silly here. It’s not even close to fraud when someone uses the same unregistered moniker as you. It’s completely your choice not to register an account and with that comes reality that someone else can use the same name too. To put it bluntly: Register an account or suck it up, Buttercup.
Re: Re: Re:2 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
You missed the craziest part!
“My posts with tag line now include an automatically added GMT time stamp…it’s a trivial check for my convenience.”
Why the hell is he tagging his posts in a way that only he can identify, for his own convenience? Can he really not remember what he just fucking typed?
“What’s this? 10 minutes ago I said ‘I love Mike Masnick and want to bear his children’? That doesn’t sound familiar, but the time-stamp matches the algorithm code…it must be true! I am surprised to learn this about myself!”
Re: Re: Re:2 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
How soon before he starts suing TD for all those other “out_of_the_blue”s there are now going to be?
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Fraud!
Lol!
Thats fucking hilarious.
Good luck with that one, princess
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Heh, I’m glad it’s missing from the post that claims it’s automatically added. Got a good laugh out of that one.
Oh, and by the way, the real out_of_the_blue will never say quit copying me.
And I again call on Mike to expose this fraud.
So you’ll not tell people to stop copying you, you’ll just try to pester Mike into stopping them.
As for the timestamps, why bother when we can’t verify that the code is accurate? Someone could post claiming that you’ve got the wrong code on one of your comments(and are therefore not the original), and all we’d have is your word that they weren’t right.
23:54:37[look-I-can-do-it-too]
Re: Re: Re:2 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Bah, must have messed up the blockquote somehow. Anyway blue, interesting tidbit: Your “automatic” timestamp is off of GMT. The posting time for comments is displayed in GMT-7 (at least currently, probably changes when DST starts or ends) and your timestamps are either in GMT-11 or GMT+1, depending on whether they’re written in 24 or 12 hour time.
Re: Re: Re:3 Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Not only that, but they were off on the minutes too. Essentially, he lives in his own unique world/timezone 🙂
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
You don’t know what fraud is. This is not surprising since you don’t know what anything is.
Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
If they did Mike wouldb’t need to hide the fact because SOPA was patently a bad proposal. I for one give thanks to anyone who took steps to block it.
Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
And by the way, inquiring minds STILL wonder who funded your DC trip to stop SOPA.
Asked and answered awhile ago:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/13292918393/chris-dodd-suggests-backroom-negotiations-new-sopa-are-well-underway.shtml#c429
Maybe if you spent more time reading what is actually discussed here and less time creating lame-ass timestamps for your comments, you would have known this.
Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
@ Gwiz
Thanks for the link. — Now I know that Mike’s level of interest is beyond academic.
I don’t bother to go through and read, you’re right. It’s painful to see the level of response. — Discussed? No, it’s just excuse for fanboy-troll ad hom. Say what you want and let me say mine, all I ask.
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
You know, at first I always thought that OOTB was a failed movie maker, but as time has gone by I realized he is not.
I think that OOTB is a failed Police office that got his badge pulled for being an overbearing COP.
Most likely he beat a suspect that was already handcuffed, and it was vidoed, so he lost his ability to intimidate under the color of law….. it just fits his personality
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Pssh. No time stamp. YOU’RE NOT THE REAL OOTB
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
Pirate OOTB dosen’t like being copied.
How much have your masters paid you? I didn’t even read the post, I’m just asking!
Re: Re: Re: Okay, now reveal how much Google paid to defeat SOPA.
I don’t bother to go through and read, you’re right. It’s painful to see the level of response. — Discussed? No
You don’t often see trolls actually admit they don’t read the articles.
Update: Rogers accidentally helping EFF raise funds to oppose CISPA
Check out the update we just added…
I really like OOTB’s comments. That amount of smugness coupled with that amount of utter cluelessness never fails to entertain.
See also: Prenda, Righthaven, Carreon, Gohmert…
Re: Re:
I really like OOTB’s comments. That amount of smugness coupled with that amount of utter cluelessness never fails to entertain.
I always get a chuckle when he asserts that “them there college boys” are too dimwitted to know what’s really going on and then follows it up with something so mind-boggling stupid that it hurts even trying to read it.
I also find it funny when he attempts to paint the community members here as “pimple-faced teenagers in the basement downloading stuff all day on Mom’s computer” when the actual demographics of Techdirt tell a very different story.
Unsurprisingly there’s a petition to require congressmen to wear the logos of their corporate sponsors:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/require-congressmen-senators-wear-logos-their-financial-backers-their-clothing-much-nascar-drivers/vZBQJ18R
It just shows how corrupt this person was when the judgement upon who gave more money vs what is better suited for society.
US Government so corrupted
US Government has been corrupted so much I’m not sure it can ever be fixed. It will take an entire collapse to rebuild it. Governments should not be for sale.
LOL
That’s priceless, awesome Friday afternoon comedy.
Why is it that DLA Piper is NEVER mentioned in articles about CISPA? I’m beginning to think it’s some kind of conspiracy that one of the largest law/lobbying firms in the world, that just happens to be lobbying for CISPA, makes it their business to keep their name out of the headlines.
If you’ve seen that awful movie ‘The Firm’, THAT is DLA Piper. So where are they in the news? Nowhere.
Sunlight, the source listed for this article, lists their activity.
http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/lobbying/search?q=dla+piper
But it doesn’t even come close to matching the activity on THIS.
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/firmbills.php?id=D000021569&year=2012
So, are reporters just THAT lazy or is there conspiracy?
My favorite part is where he says “CISPA wouldn’t allow government ‘monitoring anyone?s email or personal information.'” I like it because it’s probably true, CISPA doesn’t need to allow the government to monitor email/personal information because they already can/do do that. It’s like saying “This new law won’t let me take bribes from special interest groups…because there’s another law that lets me do that. This law let’s me do whatever I want with the bribe money.”
Re: Re:
No, it’s true(ish), it’s just an incomplete statement. To be accurate he’d have to say ‘CISPA wouldn’t allow government “monitoring anyone?s email or personal information, rather it incentives’ and protects the companies that do it for them‘.
Point of interest though: The posted tweet isn’t directly from Rogers’ mouth. It’s a “retweet.”
So all that means is that he saw it, misunderstood what MapLight was saying, and then deleted it.
I suspect he filled in the sentence with “received 15 times more [supporting messages] from pro-CISPA groups.”
I suspect he thought he was re-tweeting a report implying strong public support for CISPA, not lobbying dollars.
Re: Re:
I suspect he thought he was re-tweeting a report implying strong public support for CISPA, not lobbying dollars.
So corrupt and has poor reading comprehension too. That could be a dangerous combination.
“I’m sure once CISPA is in place, Rogers will figure out this Twitter stuff.”
Snarky, ain’t you?
Re: Re:
Comes with the territory.
This isn’t much of a surprise. The RIAA started off by boasting in the newspapers how many college students they were demanding from, every month – shortly afterwards, they pulled out of that little publicity stunt, because it was exposing their douchebag moves for them.
Now on the Internet, people are far less slow and forgiving when it comes to catching booboos like these. Small wonder that these organisations want technology hampered; it’s the classic contigency of ass-covering.