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

41–50 of 88 posts

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

#41

Post by tptacek »

homosaur wrote: post #38
tptacek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Like I said upthread, CISPA goes further in trying to actually define what a "cyberattack" is than any other bill I've read. How would you modify the definitions in the bill?

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

#42

Post by codygman »

tptacek wrote: post #30
codygman wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't said companies already opt-in to share information about "ongoing attacks"?

No. It is much more complicated than that.

Really? Google/Facebook "opt-in" to something akin to this already don't they?

Care to give a few more examples of what makes it more complicated?

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

#43

Post by lawnchair_larry »

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 here is the main problem with the bill. "Not incident to an actual attack" is not reflective of the language used. It's so vauge that you could drive a truck through it. Or, a $2+ billion Utah datacenter, for instance.

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

#44

Post by tptacek »

icebraining wrote: post #37
tptacek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Any bill that ever allows private companies to share information with the USG is going to include a FOIA exemption, because the alternative is that no private company's management team would ever allow information to be shared under any circumstance, as it could allow the public access to trade secrets, contractually confidential information, and market intelligence.

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

#45

Post by lawnchair_larry »

homosaur wrote: post #38
tptacek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To add, it doesn't even say "actual attack", it basically says anything related to security and "acting in good faith."

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

#46

Post by tptacek »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #43
tptacek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 here is the main problem with the bill. "Not incident to an actual attack" is not reflective of the language used. It's so vauge that you could drive a truck through it. Or, a $2+ billion Utah datacenter, for instance.

The statutory "good faith" language is a problem, in that "good faith" isn't well defined anywhere. But what are the additional changes you'd make to the liability exemption to tighten it up?

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

#47

Post by tptacek »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #45
homosaur wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To add, it doesn't even say "actual attack", it basically says anything related to security and "acting in good faith."

I agree that "good faith" is crappy language.

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

#48

Post by johnbellone »

ryandvm wrote: post #9
ryanmolden wrote: post #7

Anytime someone's argument is the moral equivalent of 'my opponents are doodie-heads' I pretty much start ignoring them. It is a shame that an elected official, ostensibly 'leading' our country, is making such idiotic arguments and isn't more embarrassed about doing so.

The problem with ignoring politicians is that it just encourages them...

Or if you ignore them they go along and do what the corporations want. What you need to do is vote out the incumbents during the next cycle. Irregardless of the party.
Post reply on HN