CISA as censorship arm of the US government?

[Kurt]

I work with CISA since I work in critical infrastructure protection.

But apparently there is a case called Missouri Vs. Biden (which is really Louisiana and Missouri vs. Biden). The deal with the matter is that the states felt that the government requesting removal of COVID-19 misinformation from Social Media was a violation of free speech and the plaintiffs were granted a Government injunction.

Then that injunction was stretched to CISA, so CISA cannot request removal of posts that do CISA specific things like claim voting machines have been hacked or claiming that a link is malicious.

The thing is that in no part were "requests" forced removal of misinformation.

In my field I get notices from CISA all the time on APT (Advanced, Persistent Threats) which is often State sponsored hacking groups. Mostly Russia, China, North Korea and Iran with a little bit of Israel for some diversity.

Back when I started in early 2020 we had to keep things out of the press, even if it could be legally released to the press because we did not want Trump to see "Russian Hackers" scroll accross Fox news, because anytime anyone mentioned that his admin would work to cut funding. So from early 2020 until January 20, 2021 I participated in a "Deep State Conspiracy" to keep Russian hackers off of Fox news.

But the conspirancy failed, it never made it to Fox news but stuff did leak (conspiracies are really hard to do) but Fox did not care, or someone in Fox news was like "Shit, Trump watches this show, I cannot put this on. Lets do a Kardashian thing instead"

But Russian interests read the news. Talking about nation state hacking has been more effective in increasing Cyber Security than the (not true anymore) "Losers in their mom's basement" type dissmissive talk that was done for years.

The other thing CiSA does is consider elections to be critical infrastructure. So I can guess why so many Republicans are happy to see CISA included in the injunction, as I am sure Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Israel are as well.

[Tarkan]

It's a slippery slope argument.

Many people feel compelled to comply when the government or agents of the government "request" that they do something.

For example, cops will frequently ask you to tell them where you are going when you get pulled over. From their frame, they are "just making conversation," but from a defense lawyer perspective, they are fishing for probable cause. SCOTUS has repeatedly said that you don't have to answer these questions, and yet cops have demonstrated time and time again that refusal to answer their fishing questions gets you identified as "uncooperative and evasive" and many will make the leap to "reasonable suspicion for detention" - "Well, your honor, most people don't mind telling me where they are going when I ask, so when the defendant refused to answer, based on my many years of law enforcement experience, indicated that they were up to ..." (whatever criminal activity they want to jam you on).

In some cases (Covid-19), the government and corporations worked together to create a highly censored environment where literally any negative narrative on the efficacy of vaccines or facemasks or lockdowns - including legitimate policy discussions or research discussions by highly credentialed vaccine / virology researchers - was proactively taken down by the media companies (Twitter / Youtube in particular). To what degree did that alignment with the Biden admin agenda happen because of ideological alignment vs. coercion vs. financial incentives? Who knows, but the role of the Federal government is not anything close to being the arbiter of "the truth". If history has proven anything, it's that government and other people in power will manipulate the perception of "the truth" to benefit them (at the expense of the actual truth).

The government (and the media "platform" companies) rightly needed to be stomped for this.

[gnaruki]

You might want to follow Taibbi's reporting on Missouri v. Biden, Kurt.

[ROB]

You might want to follow Taibbi's reporting

Said nobody ever.

[gnaruki]

Because you disagree with him? Please elaborate.

[ROB]

Please elaborate.

No.

[Kurt]

I know Taibbi was happy with the ruling but I tend to ignore the stuff he has written since he became Musk's tame journalist.

He has taken the mantle of a "Famous Gut Doctor" for an infomercial selling yogurt bacteria.

[el3so]

SCOTUS has repeatedly said that you don't have to answer these questions, and yet cops have demonstrated time and time again that refusal to answer their fishing questions gets you identified as "uncooperative and evasive" and many will make the leap to "reasonable suspicion for detention" - "Well, your honor, most people don't mind telling me where they are going when I ask, so when the defendant refused to answer, based on my many years of law enforcement experience, indicated that they were up to ..." (whatever criminal activity they want to jam you on).

Pretty big leap from merely being detained to having to appear in court.

To what degree did that alignment with the Biden admin agenda happen because of ideological alignment vs. coercion vs. financial incentives? Who knows

Let me guess, you are just asking questions, right?

The only financial incentive you'd need was legal departments making a big fuss about liability that might ensue from offering a platform to misinformation. That's usually why shit does or doesn't change fast, lawyers and other suits talking about the possible impact on the bottom line.

[Tarkan]

SCOTUS has repeatedly said that you don't have to answer these questions, and yet cops have demonstrated time and time again that refusal to answer their fishing questions gets you identified as "uncooperative and evasive" and many will make the leap to "reasonable suspicion for detention" - "Well, your honor, most people don't mind telling me where they are going when I ask, so when the defendant refused to answer, based on my many years of law enforcement experience, indicated that they were up to ..." (whatever criminal activity they want to jam you on).

Pretty big leap from merely being detained to having to appear in court.

You aren't American, so presumably aren't as familiar with the US legal system, but this is how it works.

Let's say a cop pulls you over for not wearing your seatbelt. That's perfectly lawful, as is writing a ticket. In Texas, he can even arrest you for not wearing your seatbelt. A cop can also "terry" search your car, which is searching the area in the immediate vicinity of the driver (primarily for weapons that pose a threat to the officer). What they cannot (legally) do is a complete search of the car (including the trunk and a locked dash compartment) without either your approval (to the question of "can we search your car?") or through what's called reasonable suspicion. An example of reasonable suspicion is "I detected the strong presence of the odor of marijuana when Mr. El3so rolled down his window." What they can't (legally) do, is search your car on the basis that you refusing to agree to search your car constitutes reasonable suspicion. And if they do violate your Constitutional rights, search your car, and find something that ends up being illegal (like a kilo of cocaine), usually that evidence is inadmissible in court (fruit of the poisoned tree). That's how the law is supposed to work.

But what happens in reality, is a lot of people feel compelled to let cops do unwarranted searches of their vehicles because they are government officials and people want to go along to get along, or the cops twist the citizen's responses in such a way that they are able to fabricate (at least in the cop's mind) reasonable suspicion to search the car. Being "combative and argumentive" (which for a cop means telling them no, you may not search your car, and no you do not need to know where I am traveling to) = reasonable suspicion.

The only financial incentive you'd need was legal departments making a big fuss about liability that might ensue from offering a platform to misinformation. That's usually why shit does or doesn't change fast, lawyers and other suits talking about the possible impact on the bottom line.

What legal liability? Where have platforms like Twitter or Youtube or Facebook ever been held liable for misinformation? Name a single case. The whole legal protection regarding not being liable for user uploaded content is *predicated* on them not curating content outside of DCMA takedown requests and...government censorship requests.

[Chimborazo]

You aren't American, so presumably aren't as familiar with the US legal system, but this is how it works.

Let's say a cop pulls you over for not wearing your seatbelt. That's perfectly lawful, as is writing a ticket. In Texas, he can even arrest you for not wearing your seatbelt. A cop can also "terry" search your car, which is searching the area in the immediate vicinity of the driver (primarily for weapons that pose a threat to the officer). What they cannot (legally) do is a complete search of the car (including the trunk and a locked dash compartment) without either your approval (to the question of "can we search your car?") or through what's called reasonable suspicion. An example of reasonable suspicion is "I detected the strong presence of the odor of marijuana when Mr. El3so rolled down his window." What they can't (legally) do, is search your car on the basis that you refusing to agree to search your car constitutes reasonable suspicion. And if they do violate your Constitutional rights, search your car, and find something that ends up being illegal (like a kilo of cocaine), usually that evidence is inadmissible in court (fruit of the poisoned tree). That's how the law is supposed to work.

A vehicle search beyond the scope of Terry without consent requires probable cause, not just reasonable and articulable suspicion. Odor of marijuana is probable cause. Refusing the search, particularly when there are other factors, could constitute "reasonable and articulable suspicion", but that is not probable cause, which is why a search based off of that suspicion would be illegal. FYI, some federal courts have allowed searches of locked containers in the passenger compartment during a Terry search. It would be interesting to see how that would hold up in front of the Supreme Court. It can get a bit more complicated though with the plain view[/feel/smell] doctrine.

[ROB]

Remember when that arch-conservative guy who was all about the Constitution here went and did a law degree?

Then returned, told everyone how profoundly wrong he had been and then proceeded to verbally ass fuck Tarkan across the board for weeks.

Hilarious times.

[Tarkan]

Remember when that arch-conservative guy who was all about the Constitution here went and did a law degree?

Then returned, told everyone how profoundly wrong he had been and then proceeded to verbally ass fuck Tarkan across the board for weeks.

Hilarious times.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

[ROB]

Remember when that arch-conservative guy who was all about the Constitution here went and did a law degree?

Then returned, told everyone how profoundly wrong he had been and then proceeded to verbally ass fuck Tarkan across the board for weeks.

Hilarious times.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

That arch-conservative guy who was all about the Constitution here went and did a law degree?

Then returned, told everyone how profoundly wrong he had been and then proceeded to verbally ass fuck you across the board for weeks.

Hilarious times.

[Tarkan]

Remember when that arch-conservative guy who was all about the Constitution here went and did a law degree?

Then returned, told everyone how profoundly wrong he had been and then proceeded to verbally ass fuck Tarkan across the board for weeks.

Hilarious times.

What the fuck are you even talking about?

That arch-conservative guy who was all about the Constitution here went and did a law degree?

Then returned, told everyone how profoundly wrong he had been and then proceeded to verbally ass fuck you across the board for weeks.

Hilarious times.

I have no idea of who you are even talking about. And your inbred Aussie ass thinks anyone disagreeing with me and using 2 syllable words that you have to look up in the dictionary is impressive and "ass fucking me."

[ROB]

I have no idea of who you are even talking about.

I don't doubt that.