Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 63 posts

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#41

Post by tptacek »

stevvooe wrote: post #26
tptacek wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet another illustration of the unintended consequences of authorizations by Congress for war (obviously, in this case, an unavoidable war, but still). The order to authorize internment camps was the result of two forces: * Intense and direct recommendations from FDR's entire war staff and intelligence apparatus, which believed that there was an unacceptably high probability that Japanese and German populations would…

If this is not an illustration of an executive power grab, what power authorizes the executive branch to round up a group of people? Even so, legal or not, there is no valid reason to legitimize the internment of Japanese-American citizens.

It's an illustration of a majoritarian government power grab. I certainly do not object to condemnations of Japanese internment camps! They were one of the biggest mistakes our country ever made. I object to the root cause analysis you've performed on it, and because this is a thread that is almost entirely about that root cause analysis (and not Japanese internment), I think that's a germane criticism.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#42

Post by stfu »

tptacek wrote: post #9

Have any of you actually read the executive order? If not, did you perhaps notice who the sources were for the stories being written about it today? There was a cybersecurity order on the table last year (it wasn't enacted). HN got up in arms about it. Some of us read it. Guess what? It concerned itself almost entirely with the operational security of the federal government itself (which operates the world's largest…

Are you really arguing, that we should wait for the President to issue secret orders and then sit together around the camp fire in order to discuss them? Is this your understanding of a democratic process?

Afaik only some leaked drafts have been circulating around and speculations have been going wild. After the PIPA/SOPA backslash are you honestly expecting "good intentions" when the a president is trying to get a very similar subject "solved" by circumventing public discourse?

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#43

Post by tptacek »

stfu wrote: post #42
tptacek wrote: post #9

Have any of you actually read the executive order? If not, did you perhaps notice who the sources were for the stories being written about it today? There was a cybersecurity order on the table last year (it wasn't enacted). HN got up in arms about it. Some of us read it. Guess what? It concerned itself almost entirely with the operational security of the federal government itself (which operates the world's largest…

Are you really arguing, that we should wait for the President to issue secret orders and then sit together around the camp fire in order to discuss them? Is this your understanding of a democratic process? Afaik only some leaked drafts have been circulating around and speculations have been going wild. After the PIPA/SOPA backslash are you honestly expecting "good intentions" when the a president is trying to get a v…

I don't think you actually read my comment. I think you skimmed it, determined "this guy supports executive orders", and started yelling.

Even if the executive order had been a recapitulation of CISPA, CISPA has nothing at all to do with PIPA and SOPA.

But it most probably isn't a recapitulation of CISPA; it is simply a series of directives on how the federal government should secure their own networks.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#44

Post by logn »

tptacek wrote: post #39
logn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where the executive order is published, if anywhere, but it's a direct response to the failed CISPA in Congress. EFF criticized CISPA as violating 4th amendment rights by giving government new powers to spy on the public. Also opposed: Tim Berners-Lee, ACLU, Demand Progress, Reporters Without Borders, Mozilla, ACM.

Oh, look: a syllogism supported by a list of names and organizations, and not one fact about what's in the executive order that you haven't read, nor one direct concern about CISPA. Perhaps you could start by explaining why Tim Berners-Lee opposes CISPA. Maybe that explanation could include a firm statement about whether Berners-Lee read CISPA. It wouldn't be much of a knock on him if he hadn't; CISPA was the target…

Uh, the first line of CISPA is probably is big reason why EFF is critical and involved that 4th Amendment issue I mentioned (which is a direct concern about CISPA... where's your hostility coming from?). The Act is only 10 pages, I and many others read it.

"IN GENERAL.—The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence with private-sector entities and to encourage the sharing of such intelligence."

In case it's vague which direction the sharing is allowed (it's both):

"[Private sector may] share such cyber threat information with any other entity designated by such protected entity, including, if specifically designated, the Federal Government."

Sharing is secret:

"shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5, United States Code"

No recourse for sharing:

"No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersecurity provider, or an officer, employee, or agent of a protected entity, self- protected entity, or cybersecurity provider, acting in good faith"

Also, quotes by everyone opposed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyber_Intelligence_Sharing_and_...

Edit: to reply to your next comment, you frame this as centered on "attacks" but it's more generally characterized as "threats" and also includes any intellectual property theft (which broadens this by several orders of magnitude). And it also includes efforts to degrade a network. Pretty sure my cell phone provider thinks I've made efforts to degrade their network and steal IP since Android was released.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#45

Post by tptacek »

logn wrote: post #44
tptacek wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, look: a syllogism supported by a list of names and organizations, and not one fact about what's in the executive order that you haven't read, nor one direct concern about CISPA. Perhaps you could start by explaining why Tim Berners-Lee opposes CISPA. Maybe that explanation could include a firm statement about whether Berners-Lee read CISPA. It wouldn't be much of a knock on him if he hadn't; CISPA was the target…

Uh, the first line of CISPA is probably is big reason why EFF is critical and involved that 4th Amendment issue I mentioned (which is a direct concern about CISPA... where's your hostility coming from?). The Act is only 10 pages, I and many others read it. "IN GENERAL.—The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence wi…

You think the government should be enjoined from sharing attack information with private companies?

You think private companies should be enjoined from sharing attack information with the government?

You thought maybe attack information for ongoing investigations should be shared with the public?

Exactly what was it that you thought was happening when banks called in the FBI after compromises?

I read the article that Berners-Lee's quote appears on and I stand by my previous statement. I think it is reasonable to ask whether he read the bill, or whether he got it summarized for him by EFF. I do not think EFF was intellectually honest about CISPA. That's a problem, because EFF opposition to a bill is a quick way to generate opposing quotes from a laundry list of Internet luminaries.

Believe it or not, I am probably just as opposed to Internet power grabs by the government as you are. I just I think I'm required to read and think carefully about measures before I stridently condemn them; I did that here and came to different conclusions than you did.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#46

Post by stfu »

tptacek wrote: post #43
stfu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really arguing, that we should wait for the President to issue secret orders and then sit together around the camp fire in order to discuss them? Is this your understanding of a democratic process? Afaik only some leaked drafts have been circulating around and speculations have been going wild. After the PIPA/SOPA backslash are you honestly expecting "good intentions" when the a president is trying to get a v…

I don't think you actually read my comment. I think you skimmed it, determined "this guy supports executive orders", and started yelling. Even if the executive order had been a recapitulation of CISPA, CISPA has nothing at all to do with PIPA and SOPA. But it most probably isn't a recapitulation of CISPA; it is simply a series of directives on how the federal government should secure their own networks.

If the order is secret, than how do you know how it will ultimately be worded? And if the subject is so clear cut as you are trying to let it look, than why was it impossible to pass it through a more democratic process?

Executive orders are a clear signal, that a President is unable to get a majority of delegates behind a specific agenda point. We have seen over and over again that under the cover of good intentions bad things are sneaked upon the public - and presidential orders are the ideal tool to accomplish this.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#47

Post by [deleted] »

tptacek wrote: post #43
stfu wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really arguing, that we should wait for the President to issue secret orders and then sit together around the camp fire in order to discuss them? Is this your understanding of a democratic process? Afaik only some leaked drafts have been circulating around and speculations have been going wild. After the PIPA/SOPA backslash are you honestly expecting "good intentions" when the a president is trying to get a v…

I don't think you actually read my comment. I think you skimmed it, determined "this guy supports executive orders", and started yelling. Even if the executive order had been a recapitulation of CISPA, CISPA has nothing at all to do with PIPA and SOPA. But it most probably isn't a recapitulation of CISPA; it is simply a series of directives on how the federal government should secure their own networks.

[deleted]

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#48

Post by tptacek »

stfu wrote: post #46
tptacek wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you actually read my comment. I think you skimmed it, determined "this guy supports executive orders", and started yelling. Even if the executive order had been a recapitulation of CISPA, CISPA has nothing at all to do with PIPA and SOPA. But it most probably isn't a recapitulation of CISPA; it is simply a series of directives on how the federal government should secure their own networks.

If the order is secret, than how do you know how it will ultimately be worded? And if the subject is so clear cut as you are trying to let it look, than why was it impossible to pass it through a more democratic process? Executive orders are a clear signal, that a President is unable to get a majority of delegates behind a specific agenda point. We have seen over and over again that under the cover of good intentions…

Yes, the fact that Obama can't get consent from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a sure sign that he's up to no good.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#49

Post by stfu »

tptacek wrote: post #48
stfu wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the order is secret, than how do you know how it will ultimately be worded? And if the subject is so clear cut as you are trying to let it look, than why was it impossible to pass it through a more democratic process? Executive orders are a clear signal, that a President is unable to get a majority of delegates behind a specific agenda point. We have seen over and over again that under the cover of good intentions…

Yes, the fact that Obama can't get consent from the Republican-controlled House of Representatives is a sure sign that he's up to no good.

Your first statement on that subject that I wholeheartedly agree on.

I can completely understand that he is trying to circumvent the House on partisan issues (e.g. welfare, health care, etc) and avoiding compromises on his key agenda points.

But if he is unable to create consent on a deeply hawk'ish issue such as defense, then there is something seriously wrong - either with the president or with the proposal. Considering that there he is still part of an active political process - even across party lines (e.g. fiscal cliff) - the problem is not with the president - but apparently with the proposal.

Re: Obama expected to issue cybersecurity executive order

#50

Post by bcoates »

tptacek wrote: post #45
logn wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, the first line of CISPA is probably is big reason why EFF is critical and involved that 4th Amendment issue I mentioned (which is a direct concern about CISPA... where's your hostility coming from?). The Act is only 10 pages, I and many others read it. "IN GENERAL.—The Director of National Intelligence shall establish procedures to allow elements of the intelligence community to share cyber threat intelligence wi…

You think the government should be enjoined from sharing attack information with private companies? You think private companies should be enjoined from sharing attack information with the government? You thought maybe attack information for ongoing investigations should be shared with the public? Exactly what was it that you thought was happening when banks called in the FBI after compromises? I read the article that…

I think the supporters of a law should be required to demonstrate that the problem it supposes to solve is real and even conceivably solvable by government action. In the absence of that it's safe to condemn any legislation on the topic, particularly when there's such a bad track record of alternately useless and harmful laws in the subject areas.
Post reply on HN