91–95 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what your point is, regarding technologists.
Technologists working for EFF are probably giving up outsized salaries at SFBA startups. Advocacy journalists are probably not. I'm sure they're all good people who believe in what they're doing. It does not follow that they believe in every individual position they advocate for; they're a nonprofit, so fundraising is a huge part of their job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not "painting" anyone. People say things that are misleading, wrong, or outright dishonest. I point them out. I don't feel any need to justify that to you.
Well, wouldn't it be more productive to write your own blog post(s) on why CISA should be opposed?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What specific part of the bill reads like a loophole that would allow Facebook to sell its security logs to advertisers?
I was just responding to what you'd said above: > I do see lots of places in the bill that allow sharing to other private entities or to the USG for cybersecurity purposes.
It's a short bill. Read it again! These terms are defined, reasonably well.
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 h…