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

Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 230 posts

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#91

Post by propogandist »

tptacek wrote: post #74
zanny wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There is no way to have actually read the short text of CISA and come away with the conclusion that 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". No part of this summary squares with the text of the bill: not the kinds of information shared, nor the methods by which…

they just need something extremely vague in place as law to support operations that would otherwise be illegal.

Obama is actively abusing the Authorization of Military Force Against Terrorists who conducted Sept 11 attacks [0] to go out and police the world.

The media is told to frequently link ISIS back to AlQueda in all the fear mongering, so no one questions the president's authority to put "boots on the ground."

Sounds like you're way to trusting of the government and forgot about NSA Director lying to the American people about warrantless spying of citizens and govt. spying overall. [1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Milit...

[1]https://theintercept.com/2015/12/17/a-secret-catalogue-of-go...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#92

Post by spo81rty »

herbig wrote: post #85
randomname2 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 14 votes against, FWIW: Baldwin (D-WI) Booker (D-NJ) Brown (D-OH) Coons (D-DE) Franken (D-MN) Leahy (D-VT) Markey (D-MA) Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Paul (R-KY) Sanders (I-VT) Udall (D-NM) Warren (D-MA) Wyden (D-OR) https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/10133932597/cisa-...

I'm a very liberal persion, but I really like Rand Paul. I just wish he didn't think gays were going to burn in hell for all eternity, or at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live. The same with abortion laws. I'd be way more into supporting him if he would concede he doesn't agree personally, but that people shouldn't be forced by the government to live acc…

I've always felt that was how Paul believed. He thinks marriage is between a man and a woman but doesn't think the government should be involved in defining it.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#93

Post by tptacek »

pvg wrote: post #90
tptacek wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. He had to be courted; the House Freedom Caucus had to make concessions for him to accept the job. The modal HN user has either a DailyKos or RedState (mostly Kos) understanding of US politics.

What concessions did they make? It was the other way round, he made a list of demands and they said no and then proceeded to not-endorse him.

The Freedom Caucus killed Kevin McCarthy's bid, even after it had been seen as a fait accompli, and made a list of demands for candidates for the speakership. Paul Ryan publicly rejected those demands, and was elected speaker without any of the process change demands that Freedom had said were requirements.

The idea that Ryan got the speakership through backroom deals is false. The House majority was in disarray following the sudden departure of Boehner and the failure of McCarthy's bid; the political media at the time was discussing how long the House could run without a speaker and what kind of rift the debacle would create in the GOP. Ryan was more or less drafted into the position.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#94

Post by RobertoG »

steve19 wrote: post #79
robotkilla wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly starting to think sander's is our last hope -- I was on the fence until seeing this. Meanwhile he is getting undermined by the media.

When do I remember hearing that before.... back in 2008. Everyone was saying the exact same thing. If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself. If anything he is being undermined by the DNC, not the media. The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for thier blatant support of one candidate over the other(s) .

No candidate is going to be perfect. Even if there was an hypothetically perfect candidate (for any definition of perfect) he/she will have to compromise when in power.

The thing with Sanders, I think, is that he has been around for so long and he has been so consistent, that you can know what he think about most issues:

https://votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/27110/bernie-sande...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#95

Post by robotkilla »

steve19 wrote: post #79
robotkilla wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly starting to think sander's is our last hope -- I was on the fence until seeing this. Meanwhile he is getting undermined by the media.

When do I remember hearing that before.... back in 2008. Everyone was saying the exact same thing. If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself. If anything he is being undermined by the DNC, not the media. The DNC should be ashamed of themselves for thier blatant support of one candidate over the other(s) .

> If you really expect Sanders will be any different if he gets in power, you are kidding yourself

i don't recall obama being an actual socialist or talking about breaking up the banks. i do recall obama being a dem and giving the banks bailout money though.

> he is being undermined by the DNC

agreed.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#96

Post by tptacek »

propogandist wrote: post #91
tptacek wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no way to have actually read the short text of CISA and come away with the conclusion that 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". No part of this summary squares with the text of the bill: not the kinds of information shared, nor the methods by which…

they just need something extremely vague in place as law to support operations that would otherwise be illegal. Obama is actively abusing the Authorization of Military Force Against Terrorists who conducted Sept 11 attacks [0] to go out and police the world. The media is told to frequently link ISIS back to AlQueda in all the fear mongering, so no one questions the president's authority to put "boots on the ground."…

I don't know what message board you spend most of your time on where you have to expend energy to sneak the string "Obama" past the filters they've set up to keep posts like this off, but HN isn't that board.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#97

Post by propogandist »

MichaelGG wrote: post #55
randomname2 wrote: post #4

How this happened [1]: In a late-night session of Congress, House Speaker Paul Ryan announced a new version of the “omnibus” bill, a massive piece of legislation that deals with much of the federal government’s funding. It now includes a version of CISA as well. Lumping CISA in with the omnibus bill further reduces any chance for debate over its surveillance-friendly provisions, or a White House veto. And the latest…

I'd love more reasons to hate Facebook, but is there any real sourcing for that? @Snowden seems to be linking to BoingBoing, who then links to Fight for the Future[1], which just claims secret sources. OK, but are they known to historically have had accurate secret info? Their landing page has this quote "If CISA passes, all your photos, posts, relationships, and likes will have a path to government databases." Which…

FB made it seem as if their CEO was donating his wealth to charity, even though his wealth was going to a private LLC. Most people believe Zuckerburg is a saint and just know the story propogated by the PR firms.

People are not going to distrust a [free] service they use daily, they'll give FB benefit of the doubt, time and time again. It doesn't matter how good the source, today's users are addicts.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#98

Post by jessriedel »

tptacek wrote: post #51
jessriedel wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a majority of congress did like the wart. That's why the amendment adding the CISA text to the omnibus bill passed, and that's while it's very unlikely to be repealed later. (Of course it's possible to repeal it later, as is true for all laws; they didn't pass a constitutional amendment.) The public-choice situation as I understand it is that CISA was a bill that concentrated interests (large tech companies) like…

Both CISA and PCNA passed with large amounts of publicity and long review periods.

OK, I don't necessarily disagree, but why tack CISA onto the omnibus budget bill if not to avoid publicity? There was no compromise justification (i.e. no argument that CISA + budget bill would pass even though neither would pass alone), correct?

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#99

Post by robotkilla »

bratsche wrote: post #75
robotkilla wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm honestly starting to think sander's is our last hope -- I was on the fence until seeing this. Meanwhile he is getting undermined by the media.

There's a group of tech volunteers working on apps to try to help out his campaign. I'm sure they would welcome any additional help from HN people.

links? i just signed an acceptance letter for a FT job but would be willing to help remotely if possible.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#100

Post by pvg »

tptacek wrote: post #93
pvg wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What concessions did they make? It was the other way round, he made a list of demands and they said no and then proceeded to not-endorse him.

The Freedom Caucus killed Kevin McCarthy's bid, even after it had been seen as a fait accompli, and made a list of demands for candidates for the speakership. Paul Ryan publicly rejected those demands, and was elected speaker without any of the process change demands that Freedom had said were requirements. The idea that Ryan got the speakership through backroom deals is false. The House majority was in disarray foll…

They didn't endorse him, did they? He also made a list of demands in order to run, and when his demands were rejected, he ran anyway. Saying they made concessions is a strange way of putting it.
Post reply on HN