21–30 of 77 posts
Why are we back here every year, like clockwork? This is what, the 4th incarnation of this bill?
Because the people who want this as law are assuming that at some point they'll be able to sneak it past the American public.
Why are we back here every year, like clockwork? This is what, the 4th incarnation of this bill?
Because government wants control, and while we have to raise a lot of awareness in a short period of time to bring pressure to the politicians on this issue... those who propose this legislation just go back when "Defeated" and rewrite it, put it forward under another name etc. I believe a lot of the stuff that was "defeated" in the past, got inserted into the recent "net neutrality" ruling that had the internets che…
Why are we back here every year, like clockwork? This is what, the 4th incarnation of this bill?
Because government wants control, and while we have to raise a lot of awareness in a short period of time to bring pressure to the politicians on this issue... those who propose this legislation just go back when "Defeated" and rewrite it, put it forward under another name etc. I believe a lot of the stuff that was "defeated" in the past, got inserted into the recent "net neutrality" ruling that had the internets che…
Want to stop this from happening, and make our elected officials more responsive to the people who elect them? Fight for campaign finance reform. That one fight will do more to "fix government" at all levels (i.e. make it responsive to the people) than just about anything else.
Why would a company want to endorse this? What is the upside for them?
Why are we back here every year, like clockwork? This is what, the 4th incarnation of this bill?
Fun fact: the third incarnation is much worse than the second, which EFF/FFTF vigorously (and, I think, dishonestly) campaigned against.
Virtually nobody who campaigns against these bills ever takes the time to read them, despite how remarkably easy it is now to read not only the bills but the amendments it collects as it goes through the legislative process.
And still, as you can see on this very thread, most of what we get in the way of commentary is stuff about how this is being "snuck past the American people" --- as if 85%+ of Americans wouldn't automatically favor anything with the word "cybersecurity" in it.
(I was ambivalent about CISPA, and am not ambivalent about CISA; CISA is a bad bill. I think CISPA's opponents bear some small responsibility for that badness.)
Why would a company want to endorse this? What is the upside for them?
Not being blackballed for any Government contracts?
The funny thing about your made-up reason? It's actually forbidden by statute in the very bill we're discussing.
CISA enables information sharing only in the context of "cyber attacks" (a term defined reasonably precisely in the bill). Essentially, what CISA says is that companies can run intrusion detection systems (like they already do) and then share the alerts with DHS.
PRISM is, as far as we can tell from the leaks, a tasking system for FISA 702 warrants. FISA 702 warrants can pertain to any foreign intelligence target. They have virtually unlimited scope (as does foreign signals intelligence as a whole).
I think this is a distinction with a big difference, but leaving that difference aside: the mention of PRISM is clearly an emotional appeal, and sets the tone for the rest of the open letter.
CISA is also at pains to avoid the sharing of PII (again: since CISPA, and the Rockefeller bill before that, these bills have been intended essentially for IDS alert sharing). It also does not shield companies from liability for sharing information via FISA 702 requests: the only liability protection CISA sharers get is for information shared to prevent cyberattacks.
† Given the little we know about PRISM, that is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because government wants control, and while we have to raise a lot of awareness in a short period of time to bring pressure to the politicians on this issue... those who propose this legislation just go back when "Defeated" and rewrite it, put it forward under another name etc. I believe a lot of the stuff that was "defeated" in the past, got inserted into the recent "net neutrality" ruling that had the internets che…
Yes, but the other thing is the short period of awareness does not end with the political destruction of the sponsors of the bill. We defeat the bill but the sponsor walks away unhurt. Why are they not vilified for their anti-constitutional behavior?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but the other thing is the short period of awareness does not end with the political destruction of the sponsors of the bill. We defeat the bill but the sponsor walks away unhurt. Why are they not vilified for their anti-constitutional behavior?
All of this stuff takes effort. That people aren't willing to expend.
A company or institution cannot introduce or vote on a law, a Representative or Senator can