[nickdoesdesign]

They dont need it. Look at the FBI's Carnivore Program, now obsolete. All they needed was a warrant (or, nowadays an NSL) to do so. Just because its not explicitly stated does not mean it cannot be a reality, justified by vague wording and obfuscation.

[tptacek]

If the text of the bill doesn't matter, why does the bill matter? If they can do whatever they want, why protest this bill?

[chc]

This seems like a generalized concern about the government's practices rather than a specific concern about CISPA.

[ryanSrich]

Well of course it is.

All CISPA is, is the next logical progression of the totalitarian[1] state. It harks back to the Patriot Act. There was an event of terror. Therefore there must be "terrorists" out there and we really need protection from them. So much so that we are willing to surrender our rights to a fair trial.

CISPA is the same thing. It focuses on one instance, or issue and abstracts peoples actions away from that to make it seem like something they'll never have to deal with. Case in point, no one thinks that they'll be detained and held without trial, but that still doesn't mean the government can't do that.

[1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism]

[GHFigs]

You could make the same argument about any law. The point is that makes it a weaker argument, not a stronger one.