Kim Harris

CISPA the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act if signed into law will allow——the military and NSA warrant-less spying on Americans’ confidential electronic Communications; any transmitted private information circumventing the fourth amendment. CISPA will allow any self-protected cyber entity to share with the Feds any person’s private information that might allegedly relate to a cyber threat or crime. Considering the U.S. Government’s current business relationship with telephone and Internet companies, it should be expected the feds would use CISPA to gain unprecedented access to lawful Americans’ private electronic communications. Almost every week news media reports corrupt police arrested for selling drugs, taking bribes and perjury. It is foreseeable that broad provisions in CISPA that call for private businesses’ cyber entities to share among themselves and with Spy Agencies confidential information will open the door for corrupt government, police and entity employees to sell a corporations’ confidential information to its competitors, foreign government and others. CISPA provides insufficient safeguards to control disposition of (shared) confidential corporate and client entity information, including confidential information shared by spy agencies with private and government entities derived from spying on Americans.

Ironically Government can use CISPA to (covertly certify employees) of a Government approved certified cyber self-protected entity—to spy on their certified employer and clients with full immunity from lawsuits if done in good faith. U.S. Government is not prohibited from paying a Government Certified self protected cyber entity or their employees “Asset Forfeiture commissions” that result from providing Government a corporation’s confidential and private client information—that otherwise would require a warrant.

The recent House Passed Cyber Security Bill overrides the Fourth Amendment. Government may use against Americans in Criminal, Civil and Administrative courts (any information) derived from CISPA warrant-less Internet spying.

CISPA will open the door for U.S. Government spy agencies such as NSA; the FBI; government asset forfeiture contractors, any private entity (to take out of context) any innocent—hastily written email, fax or phone call to allege a crime or violation was committed to cause a person’s arrest, assess fines and or civilly forfeit a business or property. There are more than 350 laws and violations that can subject property to government asset forfeiture. Government civil asset forfeiture requires only a civil preponderance of evidence for police to forfeit property, little more than hearsay.

CISPA (warrant-less electronic surveillance) will enable the U.S. Justice Department to bypass the Fourth Amendment, use information extracted from CISPA electronic surveillance) of Americans’ Web Server Records, Internet Activity, transmitted emails, faxes, and phone calls to issue subpoenas in hopes of finding evidence or to prosecute Citizens for any alleged crime or violation. If the current CISPA is signed into law it is problematic federal, state and local law enforcement agencies and private government contractors will want access to prior Bush II NSA and other government illegally obtained electronic records to secure evidence to arrest Americans; civilly forfeit their homes, businesses and other assets under Title 18USC and other laws. Of obvious concern, what happens to fair justice in America if police become dependent on “Asset Forfeiture” to help pay their salaries and budget operating costs?

Note: the passed “Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000” (effectively eliminated) the “five year statue of limitations” for Government Civil Asset Forfeiture of property: the statute now runs five years (from the date) police allege they “learned” an asset became subject to forfeiture. If CISPA takes affect, allows (no warrant) electronic government surveillance of Americans, it is expected CISPA will be used by government not only to thwart cyber threats, but to aggressively prosecute Americans and businesses for any alleged crime: U.S. Government spy and police agencies; quasi government contractors for profit, will relentlessly sift through Citizen and businesses’ (government retained Internet data), emails and phone communications) to discover possible crimes or civil violations.

A corrupt U.S. Government Administration too easily use CISPA no-warrant-seized emails, faxes, Internet data and phone call information) to target, blackmail and extort its political opposition; target any Citizen, corporation and others in the manner Hitler used his Nazi passed legislation that permitted no-warrant Nazi police searches and seizure of Citizens and businesses or to extort support for the Nazi fascist government. Hitler Nazi Laws made it possible for the Nazis to strong-arm German parliament to pass Hitler’s 1933 Discriminatory Decrees that suspended the Constitutional Freedoms of German Citizens. History shows how that turned out.

CISPA warrant-less electronic surveillance) has the potential of turning America into a Fascist Police State.

Buyer beware! Uncle Sam… Please let us make our own decisions, either good or bad and learn from them, both good and bad lessons. The Feds shoudl investigate themselves ! That kind of power always breeds corruption, and the opportunity to destroy peoples lives.

I am not defending Perry, but if the tables were turned and YOU were the one under investigation… would you want people to throw you and everyone who knows you under the bus!

Some of these remarks sicken me to my stomach. Most people who perpetuate this behavior are too lazy to put the peices together and build a business like Ryan and Perry. Remember that a business exists to provide a product or service AND… to make money! Seems like the Gov’t only does the later.

My response should be considered general info. Not going to provide legal advice on a blog.

With regard to your first question, it would appear under the rule that the answer would be very fact-specific to both what’s being offered and the conduct of those promoting it. If it is a biz opp that’s being marketed, I can’t see how affiliate marketers would get a free pass under the biz opp rule. This is particularly true if a biz opp vendor is using affiliates as a means to circumvent disclosure requirements. And remember that there’s always Section 5 of the Act for the FTC to use as a tool if the rule doesn’t cover the situation.

With regard to your second question, it seems pretty clear in the FTC’s comments when issuing the final biz opp rule that waivers can’t be used to circumvent the rule’s requirements.

Best wishes,

-Mike

Thank you for your valuable information. A couple of questions, does the FTC Disclosure Requirement apply to garden variety affiliate marketing businesses? Said business involves signing up affiliate members who purchase a customized website and advertising for the site to attract viewers to the site. The affiliate member is paid a commission each time a potential customer fills out an application requesting additional info (which is passed on to a third-party vendor) regarding the services being advertised on the affiliate member site.

Secondly, can the prospective customer consent (in writing) to waiver of the 7 day period, ie they want to move on with the opportunity without waiting. The business opportunity seller would still agree to provide a full refund if requested within the 7 day period which is the protection contemplated by the Rule.

Thank you!

John

Best wishes,

-Mike

Morgan

Upon further reveiw. let me direct your attention to page 76824, of rule, citation 91. There, it says The final rule, however, does not explicitly exempt MLMs from coverage but instead contains a narrow definition of “buisness opportunity”. As discussed in section III.A.3…. Definition is noted there.

Yes, you are correct in your assessment Mike, however, if your MLM falls within the narrow definition of the new rule, ie the three prongs, all three by the way, you can fall within BOR rule. This is all murky at best but can be good or bad for an MLM. It depends on how strong your MLM is at the time the FTC comes after you. This is my take at this point until more clarification.

MLMs now would have to look at there application, payment considerations and assistance procedures to perspective prospects to make sure they at least do not fall within all three. If an MLM can eliminate one prong they will not fall within coverage of rule.

That was great information for a second time. If I do, you will be the first to know.

Thank you sir.

1.Solicts a prospect….
2.prospects makes a payment….
3.seller designates one or more of the following….:
a.provide a location….
b.provide a outles, (ie internet sites)….
c.buy back….
I thouroughly read the rule and do not see any inference where they will let MLMs off the hook. Maybe it was done on purpose to creat grey areas.
Appreciate you thoughts on this because I envsion a potential legal battle if FTC goes after an MLM based on this MLM killer rule.

Morgan Tharpe