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

Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

cms.fightforthefuture.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 88 posts

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#31

Post by thedufer »

debt wrote: post #15
cs702 wrote: post #3

As Senator Mark Hanna said in 1895 (118 years ago!): "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can't remember what the second one is."[1] If you want to understand why Representative Mike Rogers is mocking CISPA opponents as "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement," just ask, who finances his political campaigns? I hate to be cynical, but calling your Representative may not be en…

it seems these days you can swap out the word "politics" in that quote with just about any other field and it'll remain just as true.

That's what we call capitalism. The difference is that politicians are supposed to represent the people, not just the people with money, but in practice they are also capitalists.

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#32

Post by ahallock »

tptacek wrote: post #21
ahallock wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with the bill, but based on your description, why does there need to be a bill to share information about attacks with law enforcement and security providers? Why couldn't this happen already? If Yahoo! were sharing data with a security agency about an attack, this would seem pretty reasonable.

Why not just read the bill?

Just read it. Unless I'm mistaken there's a liability shield. If that's true, this bill is bullshit. Liability shields do not protect consumers. They use the force of the State to protect corporations, which is totally against the free market.

"EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY.—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"

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#33

Post by tptacek »

ahallock wrote: post #32
tptacek wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just read the bill?

Just read it. Unless I'm mistaken there's a liability shield. If that's true, this bill is bullshit. Liability shields do not protect consumers. They use the force of the State to protect corporations, which is totally against the free market. "EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY.—No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersec…

The liability shield is practically the whole point of the bill; there are something like 10 federal laws that restrict what information can be shared in any circumstance, intentionally or not, which precludes a bunch of different forms of cooperation during attack.

A simple use case for this law: you are under a concerted DDOS attack. Your network deals with, say, drivers records. Drivers records are protected under the DPPA. You want to share NetFlow information with a 3rd party DDOS tracking service. Today, your general counsel needs to authorize any such sharing explicitly. Post-CISPA, you could make arrangements to share that information automatically.

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#34

Post by ahallock »

tptacek wrote: post #33
ahallock wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read it. Unless I'm mistaken there's a liability shield. If that's true, this bill is bullshit. Liability shields do not protect consumers. They use the force of the State to protect corporations, which is totally against the free market. "EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY.—No civil or criminal cause of action shall lie or be maintained in Federal or State court against a protected entity, self-protected entity, cybersec…

The liability shield is practically the whole point of the bill; there are something like 10 federal laws that restrict what information can be shared in any circumstance, intentionally or not, which precludes a bunch of different forms of cooperation during attack. A simple use case for this law: you are under a concerted DDOS attack. Your network deals with, say, drivers records. Drivers records are protected under…

Problems sharing information due to existing federal laws and the liability shield, to me, are unrelated. And what is the point of existing laws if they're just going to create another layer of laws to bypass them? Who's going to oversee this network of cyber security entities? The State? I just don't see much accountability in that. Maybe if there were independent, non-state third parties reporting to consumers and providing transparency.

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#35

Post by andylei »

Jormundir wrote: post #24
tptacek wrote: post #10

Mike Rogers is making it very hard to defend CISPA by saying things like this, but I'll point out that what Mike Rogers thinks about CISPA opponents is probably the least important thing to know about the bill. Something you might want to know is that "Fight For The Future" feels comfortable riling you up without telling you the full story about the bill. CISPA, according to FFTF, "lets the government spy on you with…

So getting an internet connection from a company that has opted in means I have no protection against searches and seizures (almost arbitrarily based on an individual's web habbits). So what if it's written specifically? People often don't have much of a choice when it comes to their ISPs, and wouldn't be able to just choose another one that doesn't opt in. In the modern world, where people use the internet for every…

> So getting an internet connection from a company that has opted in means I have no protection against searches and seizures (almost arbitrarily based on an individual's web habbits)

no, that's not anywhere in the bill. did you read the bill?

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#36

Post by tptacek »

ahallock wrote: post #34
tptacek wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liability shield is practically the whole point of the bill; there are something like 10 federal laws that restrict what information can be shared in any circumstance, intentionally or not, which precludes a bunch of different forms of cooperation during attack. A simple use case for this law: you are under a concerted DDOS attack. Your network deals with, say, drivers records. Drivers records are protected under…

Problems sharing information due to existing federal laws and the liability shield, to me, are unrelated. And what is the point of existing laws if they're just going to create another layer of laws to bypass them? Who's going to oversee this network of cyber security entities? The State? I just don't see much accountability in that. Maybe if there were independent, non-state third parties reporting to consumers and…

This is in my opinion a totally reasonable criticism of CISPA.

Taking the opposing position, I might argue:

(a) Our total ineffectiveness at responding to current network security attacks is such a pressing issue that a legislative "patch" makes sense, rather than spending time litigating fiddly changes to tens of existing statutes.

(b) It might not be to our benefit to relitigate the protections of those existing privacy bills; the result might be a weakening of existing privacy protections. Creating a common-sense exception that says "you can share malware or DDOS netflow traces no matter what kind of company you are" might leave our civil liberties safer in the long run.

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#37

Post by icebraining »

tptacek wrote: post #23
homosaur wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is misleading. You say "allow them to share," when you should say "immunity from prosecution related to damages resulting from them sharing." Basically, it's open season on surveillance because now companies aren't liable if requests are followed in "good faith," which essentially means "we did whatever the government wanted."

I'm not sure how anything you said contradicts anything I said. Service providers are, by the way, not immunized from civil suits if they share information not incident to an actual attack.

And how are the affected people to know that such information has been shared, if you can't even make a FOIA request?

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#38

Post by homosaur »

tptacek wrote: post #23
homosaur wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you say is misleading. You say "allow them to share," when you should say "immunity from prosecution related to damages resulting from them sharing." Basically, it's open season on surveillance because now companies aren't liable if requests are followed in "good faith," which essentially means "we did whatever the government wanted."

I'm not sure how anything you said contradicts anything I said. Service providers are, by the way, not immunized from civil suits if they share information not incident to an actual attack.

Anything can be roped into "actual attack." Remember the actual language of the bill, since you read it: "theft of intellectual property." What the hell does that mean?

Of course there is no oversight aside from the people who are making requests, so the idea that a company would actually be penalized for releasing info "unreleated to cyberthreats" is laughable at best.

Re: Rep. Mike Rogers Calls CISPA Opponents "14 Year Old Tweeters in Their Basement"

#39

Post by kunai »

tptacek wrote: post #10

Mike Rogers is making it very hard to defend CISPA by saying things like this, but I'll point out that what Mike Rogers thinks about CISPA opponents is probably the least important thing to know about the bill. Something you might want to know is that "Fight For The Future" feels comfortable riling you up without telling you the full story about the bill. CISPA, according to FFTF, "lets the government spy on you with…

Here we go with you again, tptacek.

I have far fewer karma than you, and have been on HN far fewer days, but I'm not stupid. And I know that your hypocrisy on every single HN post regarding CISPA is reaching an intolerable level.

Your rhetoric is flawed at a very basic level -- you claim that the EFF and other institutions are not telling you the complete truth about the bill and advocate it with such ferocity, yet, even you fail to present valid arguments.

You use smoke-and-mirrors tactics to distract readers from the real point -- which is not whether anti-CISPA institutions are telling you "the whole truth" -- but whether CISPA infringes on the Fourth Amendment. The bill has loopholes, and the traditional unclear and tangled legalese that is all too prevalent in bills such as these only ensures there will be more to come.

Sometimes a vocal majority can be wrong. But that doesn't mean you should discredit their rhetoric, because it's valuable. If we all did what you said, we would be likely still be living in monarchical England.

Post reply on HN