Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#101

Post by tptacek » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:00 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #98

tptacek wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It's the end of the year and they're trying to get shit wrapped up. CISA and PCNA weren't controversial except on message boards. They passed with overwhelming support, positive media coverage, and the overt support of the President.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#102

Post by propogandist » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:00 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #96

propogandist wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

completely ignore O and 0 being right next to each other and attack the typo. well played.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#103

Post by tptacek » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:01 PM UTC

pvg wrote: post #100

tptacek wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think I meant to imply that Freedom "endorsed" him.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#104

Post by oceanstone » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:01 PM UTC

um_ya wrote: post #84

oceanstone wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bernie Sanders and Tammy Baldwin are pretty consistent when it comes to supporting privacy and the internet. They were actually the only two Senators who voted against the "Freedom" Act [1] who also supported net neutrality [2]. Both also voted against the "Patriot" Act in 2001, while they served in the House [3]. [1] http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_c... [2] http://www.baldwin.senate.gov/pr…

Don't forget Rand Paul

Rand Paul is actually fighting against net neutrality http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-internet-neutrality-id...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#105

Post by um_ya » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:02 PM UTC

crb002 wrote: post #3

Rand should filibuster everything until a CISA removal bill is passed.

If only Rand was a robot that didn't need to eat, sleep, or piss. :/

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#106

Post by jessriedel » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:04 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #54

jessriedel wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do NOT believe it contains any further provisions requiring private companies to share their data without a warrant. Sure, but that means the companies now face minimal incentive to protect user data but doubtless will experience pressure from the government to give it up even without a warrant.

This bill only allows companies to share data that fit the definition of "cybersecurity threat indicator", and that definition requires companies to not knowingly share personally identifying information. It is not a particularly effective vector for slurping messages out of Facebook.

Does that roughly mean that FB must (to be shielded from lawsuits) anonymize the data before passing it to the government? This isn't particularly comforting, since it could still be used to prosecute individuals if identity can be inferred from other context.

The EFF's criticism is basically that the bill is overly broad and can be used nefariously, even if it's not an all purpose FB message vacuum:

> The bill's broad immunity clauses, vague definitions, and aggressive spying powers combine to make the bill a surveillance bill in disguise. Further, the bill does not address problems from the recent highly publicized computer data breaches that were caused by unencrypted files, poor computer architecture, un-updated servers, and employees (or contractors) clicking malware links.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/eff-strongly-oppose-ci...

That seems consistent with my aforementioned worry.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#107

Post by jordanpg » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:07 PM UTC

A semi-serious proposal: why don't we just stop caring about this?

By "we", I mean those of us with the technological know-how to protect our own privacy if desired.

I bring this up because laws like CISA are meant to deal with large-scale collection of data for ostensibly well-meaning reasons from the vast majority of internet users. Those vast majorities that aren't lurking on HN, who don't know or care about the technical details of privacy beyond maybe vaguely wanting it, who want the internet to work, fast, free, and easily.

It seems to me that with the vast law enforcement and intelligence agencies on the one side and the even larger internet economy on the other, there is no serious getting in the way of whatever flow of information those two groups agree on. It doesn't matter what you, me, the EFF, or Edward Snowden think. There is far too much money at stake. And the "privacy" threat, as we discuss it here, is irrelevant to just about everyone.

Beyond implementing strong crypto with trusted software, for those who care to, I don't see that there is anything to be done here. As Schneier pointed out a few years ago, this ship sailed a long time ago: https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2013/03/our_internet_...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#108

Post by tptacek » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:07 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #106

tptacek wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This bill only allows companies to share data that fit the definition of "cybersecurity threat indicator", and that definition requires companies to not knowingly share personally identifying information. It is not a particularly effective vector for slurping messages out of Facebook.

Does that roughly mean that FB must (to be shielded from lawsuits) anonymize the data before passing it to the government? This isn't particularly comforting, since it could still be used to prosecute individuals if identity can be inferred from other context. The EFF's criticism is basically that the bill is overly broad and can be used nefariously, even if it's not an all purpose FB message vacuum: > The bill's bro…

They have to do one of two things:

1. They can establish and run a process that ensures that data doesn't have personally identifying information in it. For instance, they can have a process by which they sign off on the types of things they're willing to share, and share only the stuff that never has PII in it.

2. They can instead run software that tries to spot PII and zaps it before sharing it.

I don't know how people can take EFF seriously when they say things like "aggressive spying powers". Whatever "spying powers" are in this bill are subtle; I don't think they're there at all. EFF does this a lot: they know their readers aren't going to read the bill, and further that their readers want to believe that the bill is horrifying, and they play that to the hilt.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#109

Post by ekianjo » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:10 PM UTC

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…

> at least would stick to libertarian principles on the issue and let people live how they want to live.

Paul is a libertarian and believes that Government should not be involved in the private space, including marriage. I think that's a very reasonable position to have - and I don't think I have seen him saying anything against gays, but please provide a source if you have any.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#110

Post by api » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 5:11 PM UTC

randomname2 wrote: post #59

tptacek wrote: post #45

CISA passed the Senate with almost 3:1 bipartisan support in October. PCNA, the House's (worse) version of CISA, passed with similar margins in April. Obama has publicly supported the bill all year. As much as HN and Twitter wants to believe CISA was enacted in some shady backroom deal, the process that actually occurred, including publicly available amendments and months-long review, is pretty close to "Schoolhouse…

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-...

Sanders/Paul 2016!

Not a joke. I would vote for it.