Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law • Hacker News Board

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#141

Post by mapt » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 6:43 PM UTC

api wrote: post #110

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-...

Sanders/Paul 2016! Not a joke. I would vote for it.

One of the few concrete functions of the Vice President once elected, is to serve as a more extreme alternative to the political positions of the President. That way, nobody opposed to the President's platform can assassinate the President in the hopes of killing that platform, because it will only be replaced with a worse version.

This is not the case in an across-the-aisle Presidency. There are lots of Paul supporters who would like to see Sanders dead, and a whole bunch of them have guns and are fond of out-of-the-box thinking about their liberty. I spent a few months participating in online communities associated with Ron Paul back in 2007; It was enlightening, though it left me feeling a little soiled.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#142

Post by Shivetya » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 6:45 PM UTC

nickpsecurity wrote: post #135

0x09 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that these were the votes against the original CISA bill, NOT the bill that passed yesterday. Those votes were: Nay - Sen. Michael Crapo [R] Nay - Sen. Michael Enzi [R] Nay - Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R] Nay - Sen. John McCain [R] Nay - Sen. Jefferson “Jeff” Sessions [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Shelby [R] Nay - Sen. John Boozman [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Burr [R] Nay - Sen. Jeff Flake [R] Nay - Sen. Jerry Moran [R]…

Another way of wording this: a list of people to consider re-electing. :)

HN regular posters? Are you kidding? They will bitch and moan all day long about loss of privacy and things they want and vote for anyone with a D next to their name "for reasons". If they actually stood for what they claim to believe the chance of voting a for D is near nil and the R is next to nil (though go figure why the Republican establishment is in such a tizzy - Cruz doesn't put them first and Trump isn't one of them)

Its like Reddit but with an orange banner here.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#143

Post by mahranch » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 7:05 PM UTC

jamoes wrote: post #129

oceanstone wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Net neutrality, as it's currently being implemented, grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies. This regulatory power has the potential to be abused. So, Rand Paul being against it is consistent with his general philosophy of less government intervention.

> grants the FCC significant amounts of regulatory power over private companies.

How would net neutrality work without that regulatory power? The FCC needs teeth to do its job. Net neutrality without anyone to actively enforce it is the same as no net neutrality at all.

Rand Paul (or his supporters) are just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#144

Post by mahranch » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 7:12 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #138

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.

Assume he wins and becomes president, what could he do? Judging by the way congress operates right now, not much.

> he wins and becomes president, what could he do?

Yeah, this whole thing about electing the right president who will somehow magically change all the wrongs of the world overnight is a fairy tale. If someone like Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders got into office, a little would be different, especially with regards to foreign policy, but without a pliable or cooperative congress, literally nothing would get done. It would be a waste of 4 years. People overestimate just how much power the president has. Even with executive orders, there's only so much a president can do within the law. If you want universal health care, or MJ legalized, or CISA repealed, a president can't do that by himself, that requires congress.

Presidential elections are a red herring I'm afraid, and that's no exaggeration. If you want true and real governmental change, it requires you to vote the right congressmen and senators into the government.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#145

Post by insensible » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 7:18 PM UTC

agildehaus wrote: post #112

spo81rty wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.

That's the big-government position. You can be in favor of a particular issue without subscribing to this view.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#146

Post by rmac » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 7:26 PM UTC

So is there room to build products to help facilitate the sharing of data as mandated in CISA?

Is there a standard or format for how the government will expect this threat data to be packaged? STIX / TAXII?

Startups; assemble!

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#147

Post by CyberDildonics » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 7:31 PM UTC

0x09 wrote: post #133

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-...

Note that these were the votes against the original CISA bill, NOT the bill that passed yesterday. Those votes were: Nay - Sen. Michael Crapo [R] Nay - Sen. Michael Enzi [R] Nay - Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R] Nay - Sen. John McCain [R] Nay - Sen. Jefferson “Jeff” Sessions [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Shelby [R] Nay - Sen. John Boozman [R] Nay - Sen. Richard Burr [R] Nay - Sen. Jeff Flake [R] Nay - Sen. Jerry Moran [R]…

Not Voting - Sen. Marco Rubio [R] Not Voting - Sen. Barbara Boxer [D]

Cowards.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#148

Post by mattlutze » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 7:35 PM UTC

agildehaus wrote: post #112

spo81rty wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He's open to letting state government define it. I'd say that's something everyone who is for gay rights should be against.

State governments deciding is what led to federal Supreme Court action.

The states-as-testing-grounds concept has always felt pretty reasonable. Some will make objectively bad choices, but the right choices will eventually will themselves out.

The folks fighting for gay rights had to go state-to-state because there was no traction in federal legislature to get changes made.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#149

Post by jimhefferon » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 7:42 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-...

Yeah VT!

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#150

Post by j2kun » Sat, Dec 19, 2015, 7:43 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #61

mixedmath wrote: post #5

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?

Sure. CISA defines "cybersecurity threats" and "threat indicators", which are now legalese versions of the stuff Intrusion Detection Systems track: exploit code, vulnerability information, and wire traces of attacks. Everyone already collects this stuff; that's most of what network security teams are paid to do. The government has several huge network security teams (they operate the largest IT system in the world),…

Is there a technical definition of "personally identifiable information"? Would they be required to provide any guarantees on the properties of the released data to ensure that when other data is shared there's no way to link them?