31–40 of 230 posts
By the way, I haven't heard CNN or NBC mention CISA once this week. So apparently corporate media has no problem with CISA for some reason. Since congress rarely write their own laws and let the industry write it for them - who actually wrote CISA ? There's no way congress would know what to ask for. Did the NSA write CISA?
I believe that CISA is mostly about changes within the government itself about sharing data between agencies. It seems to interface with the non-government world insofar as it lets companies share their data with government agencies without getting sued. I do NOT believe it contains any further provisions requiring private companies to share their data without a warrant. Can someone tell me if I’m reading it correctl…
As such, it strikes me as a try-hard and forced attempt to implement private-to-governmental-entity data sharing with little assurance, and cloaked as a seemingly routine bill. It thus makes perfect tactical sense to bundle it with an omnibus, since it blends in well.
I believe that CISA is mostly about changes within the government itself about sharing data between agencies. It seems to interface with the non-government world insofar as it lets companies share their data with government agencies without getting sued. I do NOT believe it contains any further provisions requiring private companies to share their data without a warrant. Can someone tell me if I’m reading it correctl…
The possibility that Facebook could be attacked makes the lawyers unhappy: their job includes minimising risks, and this is a big one given the PR around it. The ability to oppose abusive requests makes the (very many) privacy-concerned employees happy: they really don’t like spending their career helping ideas they strongly oppose. That’s why you can have contradictory statements.
The real issue here is the existence of secret courts, and administrative processes that exclude judges and the basic legal protection (guaranteed by the Fourth amendment in the US). Facebook can’t really oppose that without exposing itself to spin around being pro-terrorists (which is mind-boggling when you think about how loudly the same people talk about “Freedom”). Allowing an appeal and maintaining needed discretion in certain matters is a delicate problem, but hardly a new one in law.
It sounds to me (not a legal expert) that what would be preferable is to have a Public defender for privacy, fluent in legal and technical matter, who be made privy to secret decision, and not allowed to contact the people being targeted before they know about the surveillance. The ACLU sounds like they could recommend good candidates. A judge should be able to do that, and Congress at a higher level — but whomever was in charge lately has dropped the ball quite dramatically, being both lied to and far too lenient in what they knew.
There have been very many versions of laws similar to CISA that have been proposed, modified, and changed/passed/failed/delayed. When I try to understand exactly what this CISA version includes, most rhetoric I read is alarmist and not conducive to actually knowing what can and cannot be done under CISA. Is there a digestible explanation of what this CISA entails?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Information_Shar... The core problem is it lets major industry players like MS / Google / Apple give the fed access to all the personal info they record without investigators needing a warrant and with no liability on the companies part (ie, you cannot sue them for state disclosure of your personal info that then resulted in harm against you). It basically means do not be s…
TPP/TISA will create new "crimes" to be discovered. Would CISA cause data breaches to supplement legal fishing expeditions? That could incentivize rather than deter the market for mercenary data breaches.
By the way, I haven't heard CNN or NBC mention CISA once this week. So apparently corporate media has no problem with CISA for some reason. Since congress rarely write their own laws and let the industry write it for them - who actually wrote CISA ? There's no way congress would know what to ask for. Did the NSA write CISA?
Lobbyist don't do "back room deals" for the fun of it. They do it so that there's no accountability. Democracy should have no secrets, and this is a disgrace.
Well, this whole Internet thing was nice while it lasted.
What's the alternative?
There have been very many versions of laws similar to CISA that have been proposed, modified, and changed/passed/failed/delayed. When I try to understand exactly what this CISA version includes, most rhetoric I read is alarmist and not conducive to actually knowing what can and cannot be done under CISA. Is there a digestible explanation of what this CISA entails?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cybersecurity_Information_Shar... The core problem is it lets major industry players like MS / Google / Apple give the fed access to all the personal info they record without investigators needing a warrant and with no liability on the companies part (ie, you cannot sue them for state disclosure of your personal info that then resulted in harm against you). It basically means do not be s…
As far as I know, they can already do that. And a lot of tech companies did.
What CISA does is explicitly formalize a voluntary arrangement for sharing 'cybersecurity indicators' and 'defensive measures' among government agencies and private companies.
There are, actually, explicit provisions for removing personal information and making sure that any indicators that do contain personal information anyway are deleted in a timely manner.
It's hard to gauge the accuracy of those links, because both of those are from 2014 and the bill has changed since then.
I think the strongest argument against the law is the potential for abuse, not anything actually in the law. Actually if you removed provisions 3, 4, and 5 on page 1766 I think it'd be a good idea, other than the fact it creates a system that potentially government agencies and corporations could abuse (in violation of the law, but who is going to call them on it?)