That's interesting. Is this view shared by other YC Partners?
I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
51–60 of 70 posts
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#52How do you go about buying Facebook stocks as a Canadian?
Most banks (CIBC, RBC and TD) have their investment vehicles. Be prepared to pay as much as $40 commission per trade + 1-3 cent per stock. Look into this option if you already use online banking and like to keep your investment aligned with everything else.
otherwise, look at discount brokerages like Questtrade(Toronto based) and eTrade to execute orders. $9 per trad.
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#53Surprising that no one corrected her about "Zuckerberg owning 57% of the company", but I guess it's a) not that important and b) rude to correct the host. (I think he only has about 28% but controls 57% of the voting stock).
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for taking the time to provide some excellent responses. I don't mean to insult your patience, but I don't think I could say it any better than chernevik did http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3939974 . He really got down to my issues with this bill. * There doesn't seem to be a need for it. Was there a situation where justice was not served but would have been/ could be after CISPA? * I just don't trust it,…
I agree with both of these issues. Not only do I not see a need for CISPA, but further, I don't think CISPA does anything; the sharing authority CISPA grants private companies, I believe those companies already had under ECPA. I've been informed since I started reading and discussing CISPA that a primary purpose of this bill is actually the opposite of what people are worried about: that instead of getting private co…
> I've been informed since I started reading and discussing CISPA that a primary purpose of this bill is actually the opposite of what people are worried about: that instead of getting private companies to share with the government, CISPA exists largely to provide a legal framework for the government to share information with private companies, so that when government systems are hit with new (say) Microsoft Office malware and "spear phishing" attacks, they can notify stakeholders in private industry.
I honestly wouldn't have a problem with that (who would?), but I have to wonder exactly what sort of legal problems they were having in doing this and why they couldn't create private agreements allowing that?
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your time would be better spent reading the CISPA bill itself, which goes to some length to define "sharing" and "security". I can summarize, but the firsthand sources are surprisingly readable: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr3523 As regards "opt-in": it's inherently opt-in, because it provides no mechanism for the government to demand information from any provider. Obviously, the government can already…
Probably right, if I had reason to take interest in fixing this corner of the law. But like refactoring code, I don't see why I'd even discuss changing law without having some very good reason. And I still don't see why this is a good place to run the risks of unintended consequences and / or malign legislators.
Without diving in even as far as you have, my main problem with the proposed law is that it would remove FB's liability in complying, so the default will be to simply hand over any information related to any investigation. "Opt-in" is the obvious answer for a corporate entity wishing to mitigate its financial liability.
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I understand it, and from very limited experience: it is extremely difficult to speak that naturally and coherently on television . It seems plausible that having spoken compellingly once on CNN (when Reddit was at the center of the SOPA debate), CNN has now locked onto him as a viable tech commentator. (I'm glad of that, in case that comment sounded dismissive.)
There's also a media "stamp of approval" effect going on: get cited as an authority once on X by a major publication (CNN, NYT, etc) and you go in everyone's Rolodex for it. There is at least one reporter at a well-respected news organization who thinks that "Patrick appeared in the NYT and said 'Japan'" makes me an excellent source for coverage of Japanese politics. (Who is the prime minister right now?)
> (Who is the prime minister right now?)
It's Yoshihiko Noda.
Try telling them you learned everything you know about Japanese politics from watching "Reform Without Wasted Draws" (ムダヅモ無き改革) ;)
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#57Surprising that no one corrected her about "Zuckerberg owning 57% of the company", but I guess it's a) not that important and b) rude to correct the host. (I think he only has about 28% but controls 57% of the voting stock).
I know!! I kept thinking that throughout the interview. It's implying his wealth is much greater than it actually is (not that it isn't great already)
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#58What is Facebook?
psst... i was just being sarcastic... why down vote?
Read the FAQ (see http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html ) - Some posts are considered "Content free" - Also, I didn't downvote you. Do try again!
Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#59Re: I appeared on CNN this morning to talk about why I'm not buying Facebook (CISPA)
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with both of these issues. Not only do I not see a need for CISPA, but further, I don't think CISPA does anything; the sharing authority CISPA grants private companies, I believe those companies already had under ECPA. I've been informed since I started reading and discussing CISPA that a primary purpose of this bill is actually the opposite of what people are worried about: that instead of getting private co…
> I've been informed since I started reading and discussing CISPA that a primary purpose of this bill is actually the opposite of what people are worried about: that instead of getting private companies to share with the government, CISPA exists largely to provide a legal framework for the government to share information with private companies, so that when government systems are hit with new (say) Microsoft Office m…
It's possible (I don't know) that there's no way to get sensitive information about computer network attacks out of DHS, DOJ, CIA and NSA without some kind of legislative provision, especially if the government wants to be choosy about who gets it; all this stuff covers "selective disclosure", which, like it or not, is the only kind of disclosure there is going to be for a lot of these attacks.