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

211–220 of 230 posts

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#211

Post by soared »

fleitz wrote: post #199
rgbrenner wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, I read the entire wikipedia article. Did you read it? Because it does not support what you're saying. You've made up a definition of baseline budgets that does not exist... it sounds like your version combines baseline budgets -- which are created by the CBO; and budget requests -- which are submitted by the various departments of the executive. Baseline is defined by law. There's no made up definition or arbitr…

Other than the words he's using he's basically correct. Agencies request more than they need so they can say their budget is being cut. That's like negotiations 101.

> Other than the words he's using he's basically correct.

Other than your words, you're basically correct.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#212

Post by soared »

tptacek wrote: post #108
jessriedel wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pe…

3. They aren't required to share any data, and can keep it to themselves.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#213

Post by soared »

rmac wrote: post #146

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!

The most hated startup up in the world: "We disrupted the internet's privacy"

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#214

Post by brianwawok »

cconroy wrote: post #118
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…

Can you explain why you think Bob Kahn is against net neutrality (whereas Vint Cerf is for it)? I am not that familiar with this issue and the other sides arguments (against), but there are prominent people there.

People may be on the list to be against the budget, not net nutrality. Downside to a 2000 page bill. What parts are everyone for and against?

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#215

Post by snowwrestler »

sschueller wrote: post #9

How does CISA apply to US companies with subsidiaries in Europe like Microsoft? Will Microsoft now be required to hand over data located in datacenters abroad?

CISA does not require any company to hand over any data. In fact it explicitly prohibits such requirements.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#216

Post by jrcii »

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.

Libertarian support for limited government turns into a grey area when it comes to infrastructure. Efficiency is not gained with competing infrastructure, even Hayek says as much http://www.forbes.com/sites/timothylee/2012/05/24/were-all-i...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#217

Post by mahranch »

jklinger410 wrote: post #207
mahranch wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not sure who you guys think you're arguing against. Sometimes I forget that hackernews has a slightly more intelligent user-base. Unfortunately, I participate on reddit as well, and there, political supporters have a slightly naive view of how politics and the government works (that's putting it nicely). Sometimes I confuse the two websites. > So even in regards to your opinion your only real candidate is Berni…

http://www.nbcchicago.com/blogs/ward-room/Western-Illinois-U... Read that, not so crazy.

> Read that, not so crazy.

Unfortunately, I read the same exact thing about Ron Paul in 2008 & 2012. :)

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/President/2011/1106/R...

and

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2012/01/09/cbs-poll-in...

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#218

Post by randomname2 »

ngoede wrote: post #157
um_ya wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, he voted against CISA: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10764280

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#219

Post by Gormo »

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.

Net neutrality has been the status quo on the internet for 30 years without regulatory intervention. Whether or not there's a credible threat to that status quo is something that's very arguable: there are potentially more forces working against the ISPs' ability to engage in content-based discrimination than working in favor of it. The organizations with the most de facto power on the internet seem to be the ones which stand the most to lose from any breach of net neutrality: the Googles and Facebooks and Apples of the world seem quite a bit more influential than the Comcasts and the Verizons. On the other hand, agency capture is a very real phenomenon, and the Comcasts and Verizons certainly do have disproportionate influence over the FCC: it's entirely possible that the thing most likely to undermine net neutrality in the near future is making its preservation the responsibility of the FCC.

The solution to the problem is to support organizations and institutions that have real substantive incentives to protect net neutrality -- not merely an inherently co-optable political mandate -- and to work in parallel to diminish the actual capacity of ISPs to actually abridge e.g. by promoting widespread end-to-end encryption of everything, etc.

The mindset of "we've got to address this potential problem by giving monopolistic coercive power to this single centralized institution" has just got to go away.

Re: Obama Signs CISA Bill into Law

#220

Post by Vivtek »

wolfwyrd wrote: post #30
Vivtek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if they want to comply with existing European privacy law, which the European courts have no problem at all interpreting in maximally draconian form - up to and including forbidding access to the European market. Even if the US government would attempt to force companies to do this, they wouldn't. And as far as I can tell, this bill doesn't force companies to comply, it just holds them harmless should they choose…

Sadly not. The US courts have already ruled that data held in other data centres are fair game for a US warrant [1]. In this case the data is held in the EU (in Dublin, Ireland to be precise) and MS was found in contempt of court for failing to hand the data over [2]. They're still fighting this case now - over a year later - and it's currently in the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals [3]. This means that the precedent is…

Good Lord. Yeah, that's messed up.
Post reply on HN