Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing…

from the no-conflict,-no-interest dept

It would appear that Rep. Mike Rogers, the main person in Congress pushing for CISPA, has kept rather quiet about a very direct conflict of interest that calls into serious question the entire bill. It would appear that Rogers’ wife stands to benefit quite a lot from the passage of CISPA, and has helped in the push to get the bill passed. It’s somewhat amazing that no one has really covered this part of the story, but it highlights, yet again, the kind of activities by folks in Congress that make the public trust Congress less and less.

It has seemed quite strange to see how strongly Rogers has been fighting for CISPA, refusing to even acknowledge the seriousness of the privacy concerns. At other times, he can’t even keep his own story straight about whether or not CISPA is about giving information to the NSA (hint: it is). And then there was the recent ridiculousness with him insisting that the only opposition to CISPA came from 14-year-old kids in their basement. Wrong and insulting.

Of course, as we’ve noted all along, all attempts at cybersecurity legislation have always been about money. Mainly, money to big defense contractors aiming to provide the government with lots of very expensive “solutions” to the cybersecurity “problem” — a problem that still has not been adequately defined beyond fake scare stories. Just last month, Rogers accidentally tweeted (and then deleted) a story about how CISPA supporters, like himself, had received 15 times more money from pro-CISPA group that the opposition had received from anti-CISPA groups.

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers’ wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a “security” defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department. The company describes itself as “a leading private security company, provides government and corporate clients with a full spectrum of intelligence-led, culturally-sensitive security solutions to operational and development challenges around the world.”

Hmm. Sounds like a company like that would benefit greatly to seeing a big ramp up in cybersecurity FUD around the globe, and, with it, big budgets by various government agencies to spend on such things. Indeed, just a few months ago, Rogers penned an article for Washington Life Magazine all about evil hackers trying to “steal information.” In it, there’s a line that might sound a wee-bit familiar, referring to the impression of hackers as being “the teenager in his or her parent’s basement with bunny slippers and a Mountain Dew.” Apparently, both of the Rogers really have a thing about teens in basements. The article is typical FUD, making statements with no proof, including repeating the NSA’s ridiculous allegation that hackers have led to the “greatest transfer of wealth in American history.” It’s such a good line, except that it’s completely untrue. The top US companies have recently admitted to absolutely no damage from such attacks. The article also lumps in “hacktivists” like Anonymous, as if they’re a part of this grand conspiracy that needs new laws.

Tellingly, in the print version of Washington Life that this article appeared in, which you can see embedded below, you’ll note that there’s a side bar right next to her article about the importance of passing cybersecurity legislation in Congress. Guess what’s not mentioned anywhere at all? The fact that Kristi Rogers, author of the fear-mongering article, happens to be married to Rep. Mike Rogers, the guy in charge of pushing through cybersecurity legislation. That sure seems like a rather key point, and a major conflict of interest that neither seemed interested in disclosing. Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she’s now the “managing director of federal government affairs and public policies” at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she’s apparently focused on “executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors.” I’m sure having CISPA in place will suddenly create plenty of demand for such problem solving.

A few months ago, on one of his FUD-filled talks about why we need cybersecurity, Rogers claimed that it was all so scary that he literally couldn’t sleep at night until CISPA was passed due to an “unusual source” threatening us. The whole statement seemed odd, until you realize that his statement came out at basically the same time as his wife’s fear-mongering article about cybersecurity. I guess when your pillow talk is made up boogeyman stories about threats that don’t actually exist, it might make it difficult to fall asleep.

Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard — and we’re not suggesting it wasn’t — this is exactly the kind of situation that Larry Lessig has referred to as soft corruption. It’s not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less. At the very least, in discussing all of this stuff, when Mrs. Rogers is writing articles that help the push for CISPA, it seems only fair to disclose that she’s married to the guy pushing for the bill. And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing. And yet, that doesn’t seem to have happened… anywhere.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Oh Look, Rep. Mike Rogers Wife Stands To Benefit Greatly From CISPA Passing…”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
118 Comments
out_of_the_blue says:

So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

It’s okay as a tactic, IF you were consistent about its use and applied it to everyone when the facts are there, but here just means you’re totally out of substance and have started attacking wives of people in Congress. Great idea, Mike. This too will help you gain influence in DC.

My opinion is that Rogers is just plain fascist: what you allege of his wife’s (incremental, she’s already getting heaps of money) interests in this probably don’t affect him at all.

Take a loopy tour of Techdirt.com! You always end up same place!
http://techdirt.com/
Where Mike fights CISPA without mentioning major data sources Google and Facebook.
02:17:14[c-290-5]

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

Usually, when you turn up and attempt to counter someone’s accusations of corruption, you do things like showing how the wife is actually the most philanthropic person alive and gives millions to starving children in Africa.
Blue, your method is to unzip your trousers, smack people in the face with the rubber tube that replaced your dick, and not show any counter-evidence at all.
And you wonder why we mock you all the time. I see you still haven’t taken even the simplest steps of protecting your user-name, despite screaming about how we were “stealing” it multiple times. I see you’re just like your copyright cartel paymasters: lazy and expecting everyone else to do the job of protecting what you deem important.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

I have to wonder why this charachter who gives ad homs, mocks and jibes others in his comments and then as soon as anyone does or says something that he perceives as a threat to himself because of a result of his comments he then posts comments for Mike to do something about it and this Mike is the one and same person that this character redicules the most with their comments. Don’t expect someone to help you that you have pissed of and ridiculed beforehand is what i say because they are the ones that will help the least or not help at all.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

Exactly. His is a personality that is predictable. I deliberately wrote that shotgun death threat in the EFF article in such a way that I knew he would respond with “OMG MIKE, Save me from this bloodthirsty lunatic!!!!”…when any person with two working brain cells would put two and two together and realize that
1) I’m from Ireland (having stated so many times) where, unlike the US, guns aren’t exactly common (I’m 24 years old and have never seen a real one)
2) It would be next to impossible for me to identify blue.
Thus, my death threat was obviously not to be taken seriously.

Blue, it is your own actions that have reduced you to a laughable caricature of a human being. You literally have no-one to blame but yourself. You regularly contradict yourself and make ad-hom attacks (unlike this article, where Mike shows means, motive and opportunity for corruption) without any hard evidence whatsoever.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

Oh yeah. Blue – one honest question. In today’s Author’s Guild article, you responded with a link to a discussion you had with Mike two years ago, in 2011. Okay…how were you able to scrounge up that link?
I mean…how? What method did you use to determine where a discussion you had with Mike was, on what article and when? You don’t have a signed in account here, so it’s not as simple as going to that and going backwards through your comments to find that article.

No, the only method I can think of is that you are neurotic enough that anytime Mike actually does respond to you…you bookmark that page or make some sort of note of it. I can see you at the computer, constantly typing away and making your useless comments and then…bam! You get a response, shriek in rage, excitement and joy (because honestly, I can picture feeling all three emotions at once), jumping out of your seat, grabbing a notebook and pen and scribbling furiously at it. In fact, this is what I picture you to be (just mute the audio)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mv4E9175EOY

So tell me…how did you come up with that link, without looking like Mikami in that video?

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

Look who is criticizing ad homs! Our friendly loopy “ad-hom”_of_the_blue!

It’s so overflowing with irony that I genuinely laughed!

My opinion is that Rogers is just plain fascist: what you allege of his wife’s (incremental, she’s already getting heaps of money) interests in this probably don’t affect him at all.

Your opinion is as loopy and twisted as your comments here. First you are attacking him with the label fascist in the same manner you seem to be criticizing Mike in your first paragraph! That gotta be some serious psychiatric disorder. The cognitive dissonance is overwhelming! And then you further stick your head into the psychiatric case study target by denying his wife affects him when it’s crystal clear that this may be happening yes.

Just wow ootb. Go find professional help, you need it.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

If Hitler is the penultimate fascist…who’s the ultimate? Just wondering…
And for what it’s worth…I’ve said things similar before. Hitler did restore the German economy where all the other post WW1 German governments had failed…if you ignore the fact he did so through a mixture of slave labour and removal of worker’s rights and destruction of trade unions.

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

I consider Benito Mussolini to be the ultimate fascist, but only because he was one of the first, and one of the founders of the fascist movement. Hitler (or maybe someone else) may have been more fascist, but I haven’t bothered myself to come up with a Who’s Who of fascists.

Yeah, Hitler did get the German economy going, but so what? If I had a choice of living under Hitler or the Germany before Hitler, I’d choose the latter. Freedom means a lot more to me than the economy. Blue’s praise of Hitler just shows to me he isn’t a populist that cares for the people. That’s all a charade he puts on. He claims he’s for the little guy, against big corporations, etc, but he’s for government granted monopolies and knocks Mike any time Mike talks about government corruption or the like.

Like “The Prince”, or Hitler, Blue like his subtle form of evil. Pretend to be for the people, when you really just want to rule over them completely.

Note: I’m not accusing Blue of supporting Holocaust Hitler or warmongering Hitler. I’m pointing out that blue praises fascist Hitler.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: So, Mike, now you've gone TOTAL AD HOM.

“…you’re totally out of substance and have started attacking wives of people in Congress…”

…who are working for companies directly profiting from their husbands’ work, boy.
OotB is proof positive that there should be an intelligence test for posting to blogs.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

They had this wet dream about taking back ‘merica and having a puppet in the white house, they are still in denial.

The only reason they still hold the house is due to gerrymandering, and yet they think it was not the message or their platform, but the way their message was conveyed.

It would be funny if it weren’t so sad.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Well, considering he doesn’t specify whether he’s talking about his fantasy north Korean hackers invading sophisticated systems in the US using their rudimentary OSes built on Assembly or real hackers meddling with stuff just for the pleasure of discovering problems or further developing and improving something… You may be right.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Those are not hackers. They just know how to explore human stupidity. For me (NOT AN OFFICIAL DEFINITION, this is my opinion)a hacker is that guy with a sheer knowledge of computers (and there are hackers focused on different things). For instance there are those that focus on finding security holes, those who trample with software to make it more useful (or remove DRM) or even those who meddle with hardware directly and things like that. There are different words that express these different types but I shamelessly lump them together in the same word. Some hackers use their awesome skills for not so good actions, unfortunately.

But the word hacker by itself is not inherently good or bad. It just describes a skilled person when dealing with electronics in general. Although you could consider turning a small truck into a jeep some sort of mechanical hacking or something. It all depends on how loosely you use the word heh

Josef Anvil (profile) says:

Re: Re:

“It’s not bags of money shifting hands, but it appears highly questionable to the public, leading the public to trust Congress a lot less.”

“the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a ‘security’ defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department.”

Reconcile the two quotes please.

Anonymous Coward says:

there may well not be ‘bags of money changing hands’ but you can bet your arse that it will mean a substantial reward for both of them when the bill gets passed. nothing of this nature is ever done for free! and when it’s the tax payers money that’s being spent, no one gives a toss on the cost or who gets the money. this ‘under the counter’ dealing should have been declared before anything was done. i’m not saying it would have made any difference because Congress are in the game to get as much personal reward as possible and the old ‘you scratch my back, i’ll scratch yours’ will be seriously in play. that doesn’t detract from the position of secrecy and why Rogers is pushing so hard. it should have been made common knowledge before even the vote earlier!

Anonymous Coward says:

Either way, even if we assume that everything here was done aboveboard — and we’re not suggesting it wasn’t

Of course you are, Mike. Give me a break. So fucking dishonest.

And when Mr. Rogers is pushing for the bill, it seems only right to disclose that his wife almost certainly would benefit from the bill passing.

You never explained how she would benefit. If she’s no longer with the company, how would she benefit? Talk about FUD.

nd yet, that doesn’t seem to have happened… anywhere.

If Rogers had disclosed the conflict, where would he disclose it to? Do you even know? Or are you just spouting your usual anti-government, hated-fueled, moronic dipshit FUD?

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

She doesn’t have to benefit financially or in some overt way at all. For all we know, she could honest
ly believe in what she’s preaching, that hackers will cause the end of the world unless CISPA passes.
What Mike is discussing here is the “soft corruption”, the appearance of corruption, the “revolving doors” between industry, politics, and lobbying groups.

I’m going to spell it out as simply as possible, so that you can have NO excuse for not understanding.
Woman A works for a company that stands to gain financially if the government passes legislation that leads to more contracts with companies like the one she works in. That gives her a motive to want legislation like this passed.
Her means is to quit her job (I guess to ostensibly avoid any appearance of conflict of interest) and joins a lobbying group. Stories of favours being traded, of promises of jobs and people going from industry to politics to lobbyist to industry to politics to lobbyist are all too common.
Her opportunity just happens to come in the form of her HUSBAND, the guy pushing this bill. Even if she honestly believes in the bill, that it will save the world, and even if he honestly believes in the bill, the facts are that there is at the least the appearance of corruption going on.

So go on. Which is more likely? That this lady out of the goodness of her heart just happened to lobby for legislation that will aid her friends in a certain industry financially and her husband just happened to be the politician pushing for it?
Or that there is corruption going on, which is all too common on Capitol Hill.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I still don’t see it. What is her current conflict of interest? Does Mike even know where Rogers would report one if there actually was one? Did he check there (and is it even public information)? This article is pure FUD. Nothing is beneath Mike Masnick, super FUD-packer extraordinaire. Accuses politicians of ethics violations (and ex-President’s of federal crimes) without doing even the most basic research or journalism. Total fucking joke. Total fucking idiot.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“I still don’t see it” (after you laying it out for me step by step, I’m too stupid and or willfully blind to see anything)
“What is her current conflict of interest?” (Despite being told about revolving doors and the fact her husband is the one pushing for this bill…the article is more about his appearance of a conflict of interest)
As for where Rogers would report it to? I dunno…his peers? He could stand up in the House and say “Oh by the way, I’ve gotta disclose the fact my wife is a lobbyist for an industry she recently worked for that would benefit greatly if this bill I’m pushing passes” with cameras in his face and reporters holding a million microphones in front of him.

Do you even know the meaning of FUD? FUD is when something lacks substance. This article DOESN’T. Mike has gone to some lengths to lay it out. It’s not like anything here is a lie. So go on. Where’s the FUD? Is Rogers married? Was that a lie? Did his wife actually work for an industry that will benefit from this bill?

Ya know what this reminds me of? A certain former French president introduced a tax on blank media, and a portion of that tax would go to artists. I suppose the fact his wife was a professional singer signed to a record label was just a big coincidence wasn’t it? It’s very similar to what’s happened here. A wife stands to benefit financially from legislation, whether overtly now or covertly later (it is very likely that Mrs. Rogers has been promised a job back in the same industry later, with a much higher paycheck) if her husband ensures legislation gets passed and signed.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

IMO, if there is a large conflict of interest, the proper thing to do is not to “report” it somewhere, but simply to stay away from the bill. If the conflict is large enough, you should abstain from even voting on it. You certainly don’t become the driving force behind it.

Heck, the Supreme Court will let a decision go 4-4 rather than have a member with a conflict cast a vote. But then, the Court actually cares about the appearance of conflicts of interest. Congress, apparently, does not.

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Because she believes the law is good doesn’t make it good. That’s why the Government should be laic. Considering the amount of opposition and all the analysis that pointed out the privacy concerns this wouldn’t be as bad if he pushed for amendments to patch the flaws pointed out.

Even if we disregard financial gains and assume goodwill it’s the same as letting the Pope push for bills that ban condoms just because the Church frowns on them along with their billion catholics.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Aren’t you one of the fools who whine like little babies about conflict of interest every time Mike posts something positive about Google because he once helped do something with them? Yet, here we have a direct, immediate conflict of interest and it should be ignored because you’re too dumb to work out disclosure methods? I do like the way you clearly advertise your hypocrisy.

“You never explained how she would benefit”

She was the former CEO and president of a company that may stand to benefit greatly if her husband’s plan is passed. There’s a possibility that her package included some form of share or remaining connection to the company, or that she has close friends and colleagues who will thank her for their profit later on.

Even if she has managed to sever all ties and no longer has any connection, that has only happened very recently – the legislation was introduced 18 months ago. Even if no conflict of interest currently exists, it damn well did exist for over a year from the time the bill was introduced to the time she left Aegis. Her jumping ship before the bill stands to pass does not remove the conflict that was happening while she was still employed there.

Your dishonesty is as transparent as ever.

“FUD”

You’re the expert, although you still seem hazy about what it really means.

The Real Michael says:

I suppose that it’s just by sheer coincidence that at the same time they’re trying to eradicate online privacy via CISPA, the government is building a huge 1 million sq. ft. facility located in Bluffdale, Utah to intercept, store and analyze huge amounts of data, including every transaction, phone call, satellite information, etc.

Akari Mizunashi (profile) says:

Aren’t most bills passed into laws these days financially benefiting someone else?

It’s par for the course. Hell, even when this country was facing an economic crisis, thanks to the housing market crash, an emergent “bailout” couldn’t get passed unless it was including benefits to make someone else rich.

I hate our government. I really, really hate our government.

FFS says:

Re: Re: Re:

Are you defending ours? Cause ours is shit. And pretty much every country’s is. No one’s doing it completely right but the simple things are being done wrong here in America, supposedly the greatest nation in the world can’t handle the most basic principles that the country is supposed to be founded on. Liberty? Slowly being drained by bills. Life? They seem to be able to end it if you piss them off or fuck up their payments. Pursuit of Happiness? Nope, unless your happiness is a consumerist pop-culture obsessed one you probably won’t find it here unless you’re one of the people abusing the rest of society.

Anonymous Coward says:

So it seems rather interesting to note that Rogers’ wife, Kristi Clemens Rogers, was, until recently, the president and CEO of Aegis LLC a “security” defense contractor company, whom she helped to secure a $10 billion (with a b) contract with the State Department.

Wait. She has a conflict of interest because her former employer may benefit from the passage of CISPA?

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Oh, and Kristi Rogers recently changed jobs as well, such that she’s now the “managing director of federal government affairs and public policies” at Manatt a big lobbying firm, where (surprise, surprise) she’s apparently focused on “executive-level problem solving in the defense and homeland security sectors.”

Also, look for LLC on http://www.manatt.com/Clients.aspx

You’ll be surprised 😉

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Revolving door. Defense contractors as a whole would benefit from this bill. So she quits one particular company, joins a lobbyist group, gets her husband to push for the bill, then gets a job in another defense contractor with a much higher paycheck. Similar situations have happened before. It doesn’t take a genius to think of this scenario.
Or maybe the job will go to the husband.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Wait. She has a conflict of interest because her former employer may benefit from the passage of CISPA?

Exactly. Dipshit FUD Boy never cites for us the rule on disclosures of conflicts of interests, and he never explains how her prior employment creates such a conflict. Nor does he even bother to explain how he determined that this conflict, if there even was one, wasn’t disclosed. This is just a stupid, angry attempt to discredit a sitting Representative based on nothing but FUD and idiocy. Mike Masnick has struck again. What a fucking idiot. And of course he won’t defend any of this in the comments. He’s too busy writing his next brain-dead hitpiece for his idiot followers.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

“Exactly. Dipshit FUD Boy never cites for us the rule on disclosures of conflicts of interests, and he never explains how her prior employment creates such a conflict.”

Because he doesn’t need to. Because, unlike you and the rest of your ilk, his readers are intelligent and educated, and able to figure out what he’s left out.
And what do you mean by “wasn’t disclosed”? Did Rogers in fact stand up in the House and say “By the way, my wife is a lobbyist who has friends in the industry who will gain financially to the tune of BILLIONS, with a B, if this legislation passes…and yes, she is withholding sex from me unless I do everything in my power to get this passed”. If he did disclose, provide proof that Mike is wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Because he doesn’t need to. Because, unlike you and the rest of your ilk, his readers are intelligent and educated, and able to figure out what he’s left out.

So smart people just throw out FUD about a sitting Congressman violating the House Ethics Rules without actually presenting evidence that a violation occurred? LOL!

And what do you mean by “wasn’t disclosed”?

There are procedures for disclosing conflicts of interest, dipshit. I thought you were “intelligent and educated”?

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

“Nor does he even bother to explain how he determined that this conflict, if there even was one, wasn’t disclosed.”

You basically said that Mike lied when he said that the conflict of interest wasn’t disclosed. If it was, as you are implying, then provide some proof. Otherwise your claims lack merit and are meaningless.
Also, we don’t need to be told about the exact rule for disclosing conflicts of interest whenever someone reports that there potentially could be one. So I don’t know why you are harping on about Mike not mentioning the precise rules and procedures. Mike doesn’t need to. For the purposes of his article, he just needs to say “I’ve got Politician A here, he’s the main guy behind Legislation B, he’s married to Woman C who just so happened to work for Industry D that will make a ton of money if Legislation B passes”. Are the rules as simple as standing up in the house and going “My wife is a lobbyist lobbying for this bill, I can’t vote or introduce this bill or do anything, cause then there’s the appearance at the very least of a conflict of interest”.

DeP says:

Re: Re: Re:

Oh dear. The rants ARE getting more and more extreme. Seems he’s REALLY throwing the toys out of the baby buggy now. The mentality also appears to be consistent with that sort of age. Suspect it’s because he’s getting absolutely nowhere with his inane, insane and completely irrelevant comments and getting flagged at the first opportunity as a born trouble-maker. OOTB, why do you even bother? It’s becoming patently obvious that you don’t have an original thought in your rattly old brain and don’t really have a life.

Peter W says:

outsider who thinks he is an insider

As a person who has been working in Cyber Security (Formerly IA, IS, IT etc) for 10 years as a contractor and now is a government (DoD) employee. I can tell you your assertions of the boogeyman are uninformed.
The DoD systems I work daily to protect get pummelled by intrusion attempt (foreign and domestic).
My friends in the private sector tell me of intrusions that have stolen everything from customer lists to plans for upcoming product releases. But they have been told not to divulge these intrusions due to stock market worries.
For a person who has a company that claims to be about insight, I would recommend speaking from facts not opinions in regards to the need for cyber security.
Your opinions of the Senator and his wives possible benefits may be true. But your assertions that the need for improved cyber security are not.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider

First of all, not divulging those things is illegal.

Secondly, alot of these “intrusions” are human error, weak security systems, or just plain unsecured systems, or a leak from within rather than without.

All I see is bleating for increased cyber security to protect from those minor threats. Or perhaps the omnipresent DDOS attack, which will be launched by Anonymous in 20xx, the year of megaman, which will take out all our security grids.

And thirdly, these things are obviously being dealt with NOW, it is not the job of the government to make things EASIER for itself when it comes to violating peoples rights. Those rights are supposed to be difficult to get past for a reason, because it is part of fundamental liberties. Cybersecurity has nothing to do with hoovering up personal information, and alot of it could be done with the advent of just “implementing basic security protocols”.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider

Umm…who and what exactly are you criticizing?
Are you criticizing Mike for the “boogeyman”? If so, he’s the one talking about the politicians who are screaming about a boogeyman.
Also, what does your last sentence mean? The need for improved security? Surely, basic steps at protecting digital information can be used, all without needing legislation. It’s not like people are leaving their front doors unlocked, thieves are strolling in taking what they will and then magically a new law passes that somehow by virtue of its existence stops all of this…when all you have to do is take basic steps to protect yourself.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider

As a person who has been working in Cyber Security (Formerly IA, IS, IT etc) for 10 years as a contractor and now is a government (DoD) employee. I can tell you your assertions of the boogeyman are uninformed.
The DoD systems I work daily to protect get pummelled by intrusion attempt (foreign and domestic).

I don’t deny that there are intrusion attempts, or that they’re going on all the time. I question how serious those attempts are or how much damage they could actually do. To date, they have not done that much damage.

My friends in the private sector tell me of intrusions that have stolen everything from customer lists to plans for upcoming product releases. But they have been told not to divulge these intrusions due to stock market worries.

Again there is little to no evidence to support this, and companies have reported no serious losses. If this was as horrible as you claim, we’d see some impact from it.

Furthermore, at no point has anyone explained how this new legislation will actually help to stop attacks or why the information sharing was not currently allowed.

Rikuo (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: outsider who thinks he is an insider

Hi dumbass. How many times do I have to comment with the words “revolving door” or do you willfully ignore those comments? Revolving doors are a reality in US politics. There are people who have gone from politician to a job as a lobbyist pushing for a bill, to then working for an industry that benefits from that bill.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 outsider who thinks he is an insider

Yes. I understand the generalized FUD about “revolving doors.” You and Mike have yet to demonstrate (1) that Rogers had a conflict of interest, (2) that Rogers had a duty to disclose it, and (3) that Rogers failed to disclose it. Let me know when you’ve got more than FUD and can actually demonstrate that he did anything wrong.

Josh in CharlotteNC (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3 outsider who thinks he is an insider

If you bothered to read and understand the article, you would have realized that:
1) At the very least there is the appearance of a conflict of interest, as the article was explicit in stating.
2) Mr. Rogers, as a member of Congress, is a public servant and his job is to work for the public interest. Wether or not there is a law or rule or procedure codified for this exact situation, there is an ethical duty for Mr. Rogers to disclose to the public he serves of the potential of a conflict of interest.
3) He did not disclose it to the public he represents.

Right and wrong are ethical concepts and not directly accounted for in all laws. He may not have done anything illegal, but what he has done is ethically wrong.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5 outsider who thinks he is an insider

And yet the article lays out his citations (that would be the blue linking text?) and logical process through the issue. Can you offer up anything at all that refutes the information that is being presented? Citations will be needed to support your argument, of course.

Anonymous Coward says:

Interpretation....

Based on this information, I would interpret his statement, “…”unusual source” threatening us…” to be:

“…”My Wife” threatening me…” if I don’t get this passed….

Who in their right mind wants to piss off their wife? What’s billions of wasted dollars in vaporware threats compared to an angry wife?

Just saying….

Chuck Wiley says:

CISPA

Let’s see how many Senators who voted down the background check legislation for gun purchases yesterday vote for CISPA. There’s no don’t that there will be more than a handful and hopefully the media will call them out on their hypocrisy.

I can’t help but believe if this CISPA bill had the word gun or arms associated with it, it never would have even reached the floor of the House for a vote, let alone been passed.

Such typical, two-faced responses from House members who fear what the government would do with a database of information on gun owners, but will gleefully approve any limitations on privacy as it relates to other spheres, such as the Internet. All in the name of the War on Terror (despite the fact that guns have been used to terrorize, and kill, more Americans than terrorists ever have or will).

Why am I not surprised by their duplicity, hypocrisy and shameless, obsequious kowtowing to the lobbying industry (both for guns and the military-industrial complex) in this country?

What a joke Congress is.

Anonymous Coward says:

oh but they’re working for us, remember? to heck with the republicans, democrats, libs, all of them. to heck with the whole government. I can’t believe there are people out there who just can’t figure it out. I know there are people here that have figured it out but the majority of the human race is so helpless and brainless that it makes me sick

Ed C. says:

Cyber hygiene?

Mrs Rogers’ article included at the end is rather laughable. The attacks that supposedly cost so much money were mainly caused by poor security. Of course, rather than insuring that their systems and property worth billions is properly secured, such as not running card transactions from POS terminals over open wifi networks, they would rather have the government hunt down and prosecute the intruders at the tax payers expense.

RickZ says:

Criminal

While the country continues it’s economic melt down and ongoing craziness Congress is hard at work wasting our tax dollars, stealing and colluding with corporations and destroying any last remnant of our privacy. Sounds like just another day at the office. I hope they are called out and the media puts this in the headline news but with all the other things going on this will probably be ignored. Any videos made should include this information. Contact all the news department and hopefully his hometown picks up the story. Front Page news for his state newspapers would look great. Mr & Mrs Rogers this weeks corporwhores. While we all just get by they waste time with self-serving bills. Appalling! Is there not one honorable Congress member left?

Republic says:

See the dream2016.com for the candidate for repubs.
196 repubs voted for it (CISPA) and only 29 against. 92 dems for it; 98 against. These are worthless traitors to this country and the wonderful law of it. Enough said.
The lack of respect to their fellow man is astounding. They will get their very deserved punishment. If the excuse is made that these have no clue what they are doing, they should actually read the bill #1, or have no place serving people in the government #2. Don’t worry about repubs seeking to destroy gun rights. They are going all in on the hopes of destroying the 4th as well. See the dream instead.

Thomas says:

You called it early Mike Masnick !!!

It is now June 6th, 2013 and Mike Roger’s just tweeted “Announcing The Cyber Economic Espionage Accountability Act with @SenRonJohnson and @RepTimRyan pic.twitter.com/WNRRN8dKHJ

Looks like Mike Rogers is again jumping on the evil hackers trying to “steal information bandwagon you talked about in your article.

Great way to foresee the future and soft corruption in action again.

I stumbled on this article just today and could not believe how truthful it is now after Mike Rogers latest tweet. Keep up the great writing.
Tom

Rich Fiscus (profile) says:

In the absence of any official statement from Mike Rogers explaining his position with respect to potentially defamatory allegations by members of his staff against Mike Masnick it seems only fair to offer an explanation for the unwashed masses of ignorant halfwits populating the Internet. After years spent closely observing the species Vitulamen Sanguinem Parasitus, more commonly known as the garden variety politician, I have become something of an expert on their highly idiosyncratic communication style.

Based on my years of study I am confident what appears at first to be an organized campaign of borderline defamatory rumor mongering is, in fact, a completely unintentional misunderstanding. This is much more common than you might suspect due to the difficulty in translating from that species’ significantly more nuanced and sophisticated communication into the crude and limited vocabulary used by us ordinary folk.

It is impossible for me to definitively identify the subtleties of Mike Rogers’ staffers, not having witnessed the exchange personally. I can, however, provide some insight about how the benign behavior of these elegant creatures is often misunderstood by ordinary people. In the spirit of furthering relations between our two species I will endeavor to do so. I will also attempt to replicate the delicate nuance of their language in the hope increased exposure to it will increase your understanding.

Let’s start with the alleged comments by Representative Rogers’ staffers to a Michigan reporter insinuating, but likely falling just short of actually accusing, Mike Masnick of defamation. There are many ways to characterize his staffers’ actions. In some places it would be called innuendo, half truth, or perhaps even lying. A blogger with a legal background and significant experience in First Amendment defense, Ken White at Popehat for example, might refer to it as censorious thuggery. Such a person might even go so far to call it douchebaggery. On this very thread it has been described as corruption.

On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.

If you go back to the original Techdirt pieces which led to this reaction you will notice a similar communications gap. On July 26 Mike characterized Mike Rogers’ selective and out of context quotes about Supreme Court precedents misleading.

On Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday.

A day earlier Mike called out Representative Rogers for conflating different NSA programs to paint a rosy picture which is entirely and categorically false.

Once again, on Capitol Hill they call that Tuesday. I could go on but in every case the comparison would ultimately be the same.

You might agree with me that Mike Rogers, purely for personal gain, blindly supports government programs which are clearly and blatantly unconstitutional. Like me you might suggest Mike Rogers is a typical crony capitalist, irreversibly corrupted by the lure of power, prestige, and a likely future of wealth and comfort lobbying for the equally corrupt corporations he has thrown his support behind. In fact you may believe, as I do, that his public statements alone easily meet the Constitutional criteria for impeachment and his protestations to the contrary amount to nothing more than a claim of first degree butthurt.

Try to remember, though, that he truly does not understand any of that. In Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood it’s just Tuesday.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...