Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

america.aljazeera.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#11

Post by tptacek »

cma wrote: post #7
tptacek wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(the answer, of course, is that it can't)

Passive gerrymandering. California's state lines were intentionally not redrawn before the last election, so as to not absorb Republican voters from Nevada, which would have diluted the democratic majority in California and made things tough for Feinstein. The OP is hinting through his username that somehow the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange was involved.

I am finding it very difficult to believe that any modern border dispute between California and Nevada could have flipped California.

Feinstein won 49.5 to 12.7; a landslide victory.

Gerrymandering had nothing to do with CISA.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#12

Post by unethical_ban »

Laaw wrote: post #4

Setting aside any hatred for the government and mistrust, how does Company A share information with Company B (or the FBI) about how a hacker got into their networks? Is the concern that Google is going to hand over your browser history under the guise of CISA?

Mailing lists and phone calls are a big part of it.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#15

Post by rhino369 »

tptacek wrote: post #11
cma wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passive gerrymandering. California's state lines were intentionally not redrawn before the last election, so as to not absorb Republican voters from Nevada, which would have diluted the democratic majority in California and made things tough for Feinstein. The OP is hinting through his username that somehow the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange was involved.

I am finding it very difficult to believe that any modern border dispute between California and Nevada could have flipped California. Feinstein won 49.5 to 12.7 ; a landslide victory. Gerrymandering had nothing to do with CISA.

I think cma was being facetious.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#16

Post by tptacek »

rhino369 wrote: post #15
tptacek wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am finding it very difficult to believe that any modern border dispute between California and Nevada could have flipped California. Feinstein won 49.5 to 12.7 ; a landslide victory. Gerrymandering had nothing to do with CISA.

I think cma was being facetious.

I think you're right. Sorry! One of those days.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#17

Post by tptacek »

belak wrote: post #13

There's an AMA on reddit right now with the EFF, Access, Fight for the Future, FFTF, and Demand Progress about this. https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/3qban2/oh_look_its_th... Looks like it just started a few minutes ago, so no idea if it'll be useful, or not.

I'm never super happy with EFF's advocacy (I think they do good and important legal and technical work but I'm almost always unhappy with how they represent policy to the public).

I've been uniformly discouraged by FFTF's advocacy, which I find goes way past "misleading" into "straight up dishonest", such as their recent piece that strongly suggested Facebook supported CISA (a fact not in evidence, for whatever that's worth) because doing so would immunize them from privacy suits for user data so long as they dumped all that user data to the USG. No reading of CISA gets you to that.

Example from today's AMA is FFTF's claim that CISA "exempts itself from FOIA", making it impossible to challenge in court: they're referring to Sec 4 (d) (4) (b), which exempts from FOIA individual shared indicators, which of course must be the case, because indicators are things like compromised account names and passwords. That's all the law exempts from disclosure.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#18

Post by bsder »

mtgx wrote: post #2

Once again we can thank Dianne Feinstein for this. How did she get re-elected again? Was it gerrymandering or did her NSA buddies, which she keeps propping up, hack the poorly secured voting machines?

Neither. The Republicans run idiotic candidates like Carly who Feinstein and Boxer eat for breakfast.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#19

Post by Laaw »

tptacek wrote: post #8
Laaw wrote: post #4

Setting aside any hatred for the government and mistrust, how does Company A share information with Company B (or the FBI) about how a hacker got into their networks? Is the concern that Google is going to hand over your browser history under the guise of CISA?

The law doesn't define how information is to be shared; it merely makes it lawful for the sharing to happen, so long as it meets the conditions in the statute. This is pretty typical for bills in US Federal Law: Congress enacts a relatively broad statute that establishes principles relied upon in a later "rulemaking" process; the statute will delegate to specific agencies the privilege of making those rules.

If this law isn't enacted, then it will continue to be illegal for Company A to share breach details with the government, or with each other.

Is this necessary to slow down the rate and severity of breaches? If so, what should this law look like?

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#20

Post by tptacek »

Laaw wrote: post #19
tptacek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law doesn't define how information is to be shared; it merely makes it lawful for the sharing to happen, so long as it meets the conditions in the statute. This is pretty typical for bills in US Federal Law: Congress enacts a relatively broad statute that establishes principles relied upon in a later "rulemaking" process; the statute will delegate to specific agencies the privilege of making those rules.

If this law isn't enacted, then it will continue to be illegal for Company A to share breach details with the government, or with each other. Is this necessary to slow down the rate and severity of breaches? If so, what should this law look like?

I don't think the harm outweighs the limited good in this situation. I'm negative on CISA. I was neutral on CISPA, which didn't have the law enforcement investigative enhancements CISA has.

But I still don't think it's a big deal either way. Like, don't donate money to prevent it from passing if this is the only donation you can make this year.

Post reply on HN