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

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#61

Post by snowwrestler »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #54

One of the things that concerns me about this debacle is that ongoing CISA controversy will eliminate the possibility of legislative support for information sharing for good. I appreciate that there are privacy concerns in CISA, however, it is very important to the security field that sharing of intelligence indicators become more plainly safe from a legal perspective. 'Indicators' usually consist of information abou…

CISA will almost certainly pass tomorrow. It already achieved cloture, typically the hardest part of getting a bill out of the Senate. It needed 60 votes and got 83. It just needs 50 for final passage, and I have a hard time seeing how 34 Senators would change their minds within a week.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#62

Post by protomyth »

swang wrote: post #37
jtmcmc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feinnstein is a very long running senator with a hugely entrenched power base. Because of that it's hard to remove her from office. She also despite being very authoritarian is fairly progressive in other respects so she is able to appeal to her base of older democrats in that respect. I really really dislike her, but it totally makes sense that she is basically invulnerable within her senate seat.

This is the reason why I don't fill in a ballot for her whenever her seat comes up. I know it's not going to do much, and I am not really sure I want a Republican in that seat (if that were even possible) since I doubt it would be any better than her positions. All I see with her about this is the hypocrisy of it all. She is totally fine with the NSA intervening in our lives, but threw a huge fit when the CIA was fou…

That's why primary challenges are important. I doubt she'll be gone before she wants to be, but I was skeptical they could get Cantor also.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#63

Post by Laaw »

tptacek wrote: post #55
guelo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think they do important work why do you consider it your duty to go on every advocacy thread and say how you disagree with their tactics ? How does your tactic of constantly discouraging people from advocating for these issues serve your stated shared goals better than EFF's?

Probably for the same reason that you clearly feel it's your duty to repeat this same comment on all those threads. I'm guessing it's a shared feeling of someone being wrong on the Internet. I'm really not sure what's so complicated about this. I have a hard time thinking of legal support EFF has provided that I don't support. If EFF was just legal support, I'd be a donor. I think their technical work is mostly good;…

You're conducting this conversation in a manner I find to be vocalizing the precise feelings I've had about CISA and CISPA, and especially, EFF.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#65

Post by meowface »

jcrawfordor wrote: post #54

One of the things that concerns me about this debacle is that ongoing CISA controversy will eliminate the possibility of legislative support for information sharing for good. I appreciate that there are privacy concerns in CISA, however, it is very important to the security field that sharing of intelligence indicators become more plainly safe from a legal perspective. 'Indicators' usually consist of information abou…

There is already a pretty large threat intelligence information sharing effort in place through the ISAC system established by DHS: http://www.isaccouncil.org

These have seen widespread adoption by medium and large sized companies, and are doing good work. Or at least the one I participate in is; I can't speak for the other ISACs.

They have policies that facilitate information sharing without privacy or liability issues.

There are definitely still a very large portion of organizations that are not a member of any ISAC or similar information sharing group, though. I don't know how much CISA may help with that.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#66

Post by jcrawfordor »

meowface wrote: post #65
jcrawfordor wrote: post #54

One of the things that concerns me about this debacle is that ongoing CISA controversy will eliminate the possibility of legislative support for information sharing for good. I appreciate that there are privacy concerns in CISA, however, it is very important to the security field that sharing of intelligence indicators become more plainly safe from a legal perspective. 'Indicators' usually consist of information abou…

There is already a pretty large threat intelligence information sharing effort in place through the ISAC system established by DHS: http://www.isaccouncil.org These have seen widespread adoption by medium and large sized companies, and are doing good work. Or at least the one I participate in is; I can't speak for the other ISACs. They have policies that facilitate information sharing without privacy or liability iss…

You may find it meaningful that, in my interactions with several people involved in operating ISACs, I have heard nothing but support for CISA. One high-up individual in a well-known ISAC expressed a great deal of frustration and said that opposition to CISA came only from people who had no idea what it was indicators were. I don't think that it's quite that simple, but there's certainly an element of that.

Much of the benefit of CISA is specifically in the area of information sharing with the gov't, which has various initiatives like NCCIC that are falling flat in a lot of ways. Of course the ISACs would like to be involved in this. CISA is also seen as a way to get a lot more organizations to contribute to ISACs, as well.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#67

Post by TeMPOraL »

zmanian wrote: post #27
tptacek wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

It is uncontroversial to state that corporations and special interest groups frequently lobby in public for a position and in private against a position. Frequently you know this only through un-attributable information passed to you. Advocacy organizations are not journalists. They don't need to cite their sourcing before making claims they believe are true. The purpose of calling out Facebook is an attempt force th…

> Advocacy organizations are not journalists. They don't need to cite their sourcing before making claims they believe are true. The purpose of calling out Facebook is an attempt force them to align their public and private positions if they differ.

So in other words, as long as they are "advocacy organizations" and say that they believe in some view, they get a free pass to lie, spread bullshit and FUD? I thought we should have a higher standard.

Personally, I am for severely punishing liars as a top priority, no matter what side they're on. Then we may get a constructive discussion.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#68

Post by dmfdmf »

orionblastar wrote: post #26

I can't believe the number of times this bill has been voted down, only to come back up for a vote again under a different bill or different name. It is like they keep submitting bills until it gets passed. This not only is a waste of time, it seems to be how the lobbyists get their bills passed. Eventually one will get passed and then our privacy will no longer exist. If you want our data, get a judge to order a sea…

>If you want our data, get a judge to order a search warrant. Otherwise it is Unconstitutional.

This is my position and nothing will move me from it because it is the principled position. Moreover, the advocates of mass surveillance fail to realize that even if their motives are as pure as the driven snow nevertheless a mass surveillance system will attract sociopaths and psychopaths who survive by preying on other human beings instead of creating value and trade. This is exactly why we have a Constitution to limit the powers of government.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#69

Post by snowwrestler »

WildUtah wrote: post #59
snowwrestler wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you seen the shape of California? I mean, it's implausible at best. :-) But seriously, it's kind of fun to imagine what life would be like if U.S. states were shaped like House districts. Maryland is probably the closest, geometrically.

Have you seen the shape of California? Did you know that Reno has been gerrymandered so far it's now west of Los Angeles? That has to be some kind of conspiracy. Otherwise it would just be impossible.

California was stretched so far that it covers the full distance from the lowest elevation in the lower 48 to the highest summit in the lower 48.

It was also shaped so that it encompassed the driest point in the U.S.--Death Valley--and one of the wettest: 100 feet underwater below the Golden Gate Bridge.

Also, if the state of California were its own country, it would be referred to as the nation of California. True story.

Re: Despite privacy concerns, CISA bill poised for passage

#70

Post by wavefunction »

littletimmy wrote: post #48

Dianne Feinstein again? Wasn't she Really angry some time ago when it was revealed the NSA spied on Congress? Does privacy apply only to Congress and not to ordinary citizens? Ms. Feinstein peaked before the computer was invented. It is time this 82-year-old was retired and we get in charge someone who understands technology. How does this woman keep getting elected?

She supports the motion-picture industry and has incumbent support in a safe district for her political party. As a senator with real seniority she's quite embedded in the system.

I believe she was more concerned about a) the NSA facing public scrutiny b) that the CIA hacked her computer resources in an attempt to determine what line of inquiry into torture the sub-committee on CIA torture investigation was headed towards. So yes, warrantless-surveillance is for "the little people" as far as she and the other members of Congress are concerned, mostly.

Post reply on HN