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

151–160 of 230 posts

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#151

Post by rmac »

tptacek wrote: post #48
egwynn wrote: post #14

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…

You are reading it correctly. CISA explicitly establishes by statute that private entities are never required to share data, but that the government is required to share with private entities.

I couldn't find language that states the fed has to share data back with private entities. I did see provisions allowing the fed to share submitted data with other federal agencies and even some health care operators.

Where does it state that private cos get access to this data?

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#152

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mapt wrote: post #141
api wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 support…

The broader problem is that the Vice President has no real power. You can't balance a Presidency with an across-the-aisle candidate because the Vice President can't meaningfully do anything without the President's assent.

The interesting thing is if the Democrats nominate Sanders and the Republicans nominate Paul.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#153

Post by joeyaiello »

mahranch wrote: post #143
jamoes wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality.

I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this many of T-Mobile's more pro-competition moves in the wireless telecom space, though it's also easy to argue that the FCC is more necessary there as wireless spectrum is a much more finite, common resource than fiber in the ground (theoretically, you could run an unlimited amount of it).

As an aside, of course, many see T-Mobile's moves as bad for net neutrality based on principle, despite the fact that they're actually good for the consumer today.[1] I might argue that those people are making the same argument you are about Rand Paul: that they're " just using semantics to try and wave away this pretty important issue".

[1] http://www.theverge.com/2014/6/18/5822996/t-mobile-music-fre...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#154

Post by raintrees »

robotkilla wrote: post #69
Aaronik wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even when you educate them they're so shell shocked by the news that they're willing to let the powers that be shepherd them into servitude. We're all megafucked. The shell shocked attitude that's followed by complacency is exactly, "We're all megafucked," possibly in other words. It's exactly that attitude that we need to steer away from, no matter how grim the landscape looks. That's step 1 to change.

if correcting one's attitude is step one, what is step two? voting? what real victories have been won on this front recently? and i'm not advocating for extremism nor am i advocating for complacency, the game just seems stacked with zero possibility of change.

I have recently gotten involved in local government and local community-supporting non-profits. The US as a world power and example of virtuousness seems to be on its way to the dustbin, so I am focusing on protecting/making healthy my community.

If our local community can become strong enough, we may have a chance to survive to see what the next attempt at national/federal(/world?) government might look like.

It's one of the few ways I can think of to do something positive and legal. And non-violent.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#155

Post by an_ko »

Shivetya wrote: post #142
nickpsecurity wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your post condenses to “Everyone here sucks because ”. Please try to be more constructive in your criticism.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#156

Post by caseysoftware »

rgbrenner wrote: post #134
caseysoftware wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increases. There have been very few true "cuts" at the Federal level in the last few generations. The secret is Baseline Budgeting[1]. If your agency got $100 this year, you ask for $110 next year and that becomes the "baseline." Now when the actual budget negotiations happen, you may only get $105. Most people would call this a 5% increase but instead they consider it a (roughly) 5% cut from the baseline. This is ho…

you make it sound like the numbers are out of thin air.. but your link says: Baseline budgeting uses current spending levels as the "baseline" for establishing future funding requirements and assumes future budgets will equal the current budget times the inflation rate times the population growth rate. Sounds reasonable to me.

That's the idealized definition, yes. But in practice, that's not how it works.

There are one-time projects, ongoing programs, an ever-changing list of agency priorities, and - like any negotiation - groups start higher than they need so they have wiggle room. And yes, many of those things are out of thin air or completely arbitrary.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#157

Post by ngoede »

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

I am pretty sure Rand Paul just votes against Budget bills in general and this has nothing to do with CISA being part of it.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#158

Post by AnthonyMouse »

tptacek wrote: post #81
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I must disagree. I believe you are overstating things. Schoolhouse rocks, last I checked, had one bill moving from one house to the other. Citizens could lobby at any point, including the conference committee. Each of these were passed in isolation, then stuck together, then stuck into a budget bill. Then the only question was whether you wanted the entire bill to pass or not. It's a fair interpretation to say that s…

Bills get passed in omnibus spending bills all the time. For instance, as someone pointed out on the last thread about CISA: your COBRA health insurance? COBRA stands for "Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act". There was extended public debate and a prolonged amendment process for CISA and PCNA in both houses of Congress. There was intense media coverage and, once CISA passed in October, the consensus was t…

Now you're just making the case that the Schoolhouse Rock process is never followed for controversial bills. That isn't the process being followed, it's evidence that the proponents required procedural gymnastics to subvert that process in order to get the bill passed.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#159

Post by warfangle »

joeyaiello wrote: post #153
mahranch wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The FCC only needs "teeth to do its job" because they are the only external force acting against cable monopolies. Some believe that, if the FCC were to have less power, it would be easier for more ISPs to come along and compete with the big guys (Comcast, Time Warner, Cox, etc.), and that this market force would be the "teeth" that prevents net neutrality. I'd argue that, to some extent, we're already seeing this ma…

The magical thinking with less regulatory power = more competition with regard to utilities like last-mile internet comes down to 1) infrastructure cost and 2) lack of access to shared infrastructure.

For most potential players, it simply costs too much to even think about entering the market. Truly unregulated free markets are great in theory, but are instantly distorted when you take things like reality into account.

Part of what the recent net neutrality rules did is ensure that power utilities must lease pole/conduit access to internet utilities at the same rates they lease to cable tv and telephone utilities. This helps reduce cost to enter the market.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#160

Post by warfangle »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #147
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]…

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

Rubio is too busy campaigning to actually do his job.
Post reply on HN