171–180 of 230 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
103(a)(3) also requires them to share, when possible, with the general public.
In the Senate CISA draft, the language about "entities" is a little confusing. "Entities", unqualified, are private companies; government agencies are "Federal entities".
One the few changes in the budget bill CISA is to have the law now refer to "Federal entities" and "Non-federal entities".
I'm sure Techdirt found a way to spin that into a conspiracy to chopper away the Open Whisper System developers in black helicopters.
Original: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20151022/10133932597/cisa-...
Votes against the bill that was signed into law: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/114-2015/s339
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.
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 debate on CISA was over. Thankfully Thankfully? In the sense that at least it wasn't close to PCNA or that you think this bill will do anything to actually benefit "cybersecurity"? Because if it doesn't serve its purpose, then it doesn't really matter how close was or wasn't to the PCNA, does it? Also, you're not worried at all about the legal protections companies get for cooperating with the NSA? If they "are…
It is not the way conference committees work that there's a whole new open public process. By the time a bill has passed both houses of Congress, the incentive is declare victory and get the thing over with. The only reason there even is a conference committee is to get the House and Senate to agree on language.
I've explained repeatedly why the legal immunity language in CISA is not only reasonable, but in fact most of the impetus for the entire bill.
I'm a little annoyed at how you're asking me to explain it again, because that once again puts me in the position of being perceived as a supporter of CISA, which I am not. I'm very tired of people --- like, respectfully, you --- equating "effort taken to understand a complicated issue" with "partisan support for one side of that issue".
The "tell" that that's what's happening here is the language you chose to use: "you're not worried at all that...?". In sales, language like that is referred to as "an assumptive close". It is literally a mind control technique. Here, you're trying to deploy it on me to put me on the wrong side of an issue being discussed on HN.
PLEASE STOP DOING THAT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
For those who are interested, this type of application is fairly recent. The Reconciliation Act was passed in 74. It hadn't even been out a year before it was being used in ways not anticipated by the sponsors, and the stretching has continued year-after-year. Relevant wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_...
IIRC, CORBA was the first big "win", providing continuing insurance privileges to folks when they left their job. A great idea, no doubt, but not a damned thing to do with the budget.
Also more information: https://www.votetocracy.com/blog/what-is-reconciliation
Interesting historical quote from the second article. President Clinton attempted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Byrd, according to Wikipedia, “insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets,”
Times have changed. Each year these things get easier and easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. Ev…
CBO assumes the government continues current operations and applies the effects of new laws to create their baseline.
Agencies include discretionary spending to create their baseline.
All of this is noted on the Wikipedia page.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not Voting - Sen. Marco Rubio [R] Not Voting - Sen. Barbara Boxer [D] Cowards.
Rubio is too busy campaigning to actually do his job.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
How many self-professed libertarians are there in the Congress? Paul's not even self-professed libertarian. The only one I know is Justin Amash, and he couldn't introduce any of type of bills you reference because under Boehner's regime only bills blessed by his team could ever make it to the floor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_U...