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

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#161

Post by brandonmenc »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #152
mapt wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Interesting, if only due to its impossibility.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#162

Post by laotzu »

ck2 wrote: post #12

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?

Consider that CNN and NBC are owned by Time Warner and Comcast.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#163

Post by laotzu »

tosseraccount wrote: post #80

The debt to GDP ratio keeps rising: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/government-deb... The day of reckoning is coming.

Money is debt by design, and GDP and money creation are positively correlated on purpose. I'm not sure what you're trying to point out here.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#164

Post by laotzu »

MicroBerto wrote: post #36
merpnderp wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What makes you think this is a democracy?

State run public education and mass media

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#165

Post by ubernostrum »

j2kun wrote: post #150
tptacek wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I don't know if there's a general-purpose one, but for medical data HIPAA has had definitions and guidelines for PII for a long, long time.

The deeper problem is that any piece or amount of information can, in the right circumstances, become personally-identifiable, and so the only guaranteed-safe system would be to forbid collecting or sharing anything. Which would necessarily result in literally turning off the internet.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#166

Post by hackuser »

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.

How about Paul/Sanders?

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#167

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#168

Post by ubernostrum »

ekianjo wrote: post #109
herbig wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The simple problem is that 99.999999999999999999% of self-professed libertarians I've encountered who simply say "the government should get out of the marriage business" only ever say that. They never lobby for (or introduce, if they're in a position to do so) bills to actually achieve that end, and in fact usually do nothing and let the status quo -- which until very recently was "keep the discriminatory laws on the books" -- stand.

So in extensional terms, such "libertarians" are often indistinguishable from theocrats on key social issues (i.e., regardless of what different set of inner philosophical principles they might claim to be following, the outward result in terms of lawmaking is identical). Which in turn means they're not going to get my vote.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#169

Post by rgbrenner »

caseysoftware wrote: post #156
rgbrenner wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

just so we're clear, you're claiming that the Congressional Budget Office -- which creates baseline budgets twice per year -- is operating outside of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (which requires it to create baseline budgets), and is instead creating budgets that are completely arbitrary.

That's quite a claim.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, you're clearing confusing budget requests with baseline budgets. Everything you've said applies to budget requests.. none of it applies to baseline budgeting.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#170

Post by ubernostrum »

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.

I suppose technically it could be worse -- he could take Ron Paul's position of forcibly exempting the states from having to respect guaranteed basic rights (Ron Paul has campaigned on literally rolling back that part of the Fourteenth Amendment).
Post reply on HN