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

CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

zdnet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 95 posts

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#11

Post by awj »

rektide wrote: post #9
tsotha wrote: post #2

"Undead" is more like. This thing will keep coming back under different names until it passes.

No joke- Obama threatened a veto on privacy concerns and the senate punted on it- and yet: The government is dead serious about turning every sizable company on the internet into a part of a gross-national cybersecurity infrastrucutre maintainer, and they are not going to quit until the internet has been adequately leashed by the legislative hand. If corporations are people, this is definitely a violation of the 3rd…

> The government is dead serious about turning every sizable company on the internet into a part of a gross-national cybersecurity infrastrucutre maintainer,

Which government? The head of the executive branch that threatened to veto such a thing over privacy concerns, or the Senate that wouldn't even give the bill the time of day (again, due to privacy concerns).

The government is a big damned huge complicated thing. Statements like "The government wants to do X" are silly simply due to the scale, even more so when two distinct pieces of "the government" are blocking the action you're asserting as their "dead serious" goal.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#12

Post by tzs »

rektide wrote: post #9
tsotha wrote: post #2

"Undead" is more like. This thing will keep coming back under different names until it passes.

No joke- Obama threatened a veto on privacy concerns and the senate punted on it- and yet: The government is dead serious about turning every sizable company on the internet into a part of a gross-national cybersecurity infrastrucutre maintainer, and they are not going to quit until the internet has been adequately leashed by the legislative hand. If corporations are people, this is definitely a violation of the 3rd…

> If corporations are people, this is definitely a violation of the 3rd amendment.

How so? I don't see anything in either the actual CISPA nor the imaginary CISPAs that much of the internet thinks exist that would raise a 3rd Amendment issue.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#14

Post by tptacek »

rektide wrote: post #9
tsotha wrote: post #2

"Undead" is more like. This thing will keep coming back under different names until it passes.

No joke- Obama threatened a veto on privacy concerns and the senate punted on it- and yet: The government is dead serious about turning every sizable company on the internet into a part of a gross-national cybersecurity infrastrucutre maintainer, and they are not going to quit until the internet has been adequately leashed by the legislative hand. If corporations are people, this is definitely a violation of the 3rd…

'tzs is being dry, so, just so you know: the 3rd Amendment is the one that says you can't quarter soldiers in people's houses.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#15

Post by tzs »

tsotha wrote: post #2

"Undead" is more like. This thing will keep coming back under different names until it passes.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work? There is pretty widespread agreement even among opponents of CISPA in its current form that the problems it is trying to address are real, serious, and need to be addressed, and I believe that there is even wide agreement that CISPA addresses them. The objections are that it needs some tweaking to prevent abuse (e.g., tighten up some definitions). Why should it not come back after those tweaks are made?

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#17

Post by tomku »

tzs wrote: post #15
tsotha wrote: post #2

"Undead" is more like. This thing will keep coming back under different names until it passes.

Isn't that how it is supposed to work? There is pretty widespread agreement even among opponents of CISPA in its current form that the problems it is trying to address are real, serious, and need to be addressed, and I believe that there is even wide agreement that CISPA addresses them. The objections are that it needs some tweaking to prevent abuse (e.g., tighten up some definitions). Why should it not come back aft…

Some people oppose CISPA because of fixable issues regarding privacy or overly broad scope, some oppose it because they they think that it'll let the government spy on every URL they visit or allow the MPAA to take down all of Facebook for copyright infringement. According to the latter, CISPA isn't just a bad idea, it's pure malicious evil - the people supporting it need to be defeated so soundly that they never even try to bring it up again.

Unfortunately, that latter group is quite well-represented here on HN.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#19

Post by rayiner »

arjn wrote: post #16

There should be measures put in place preventing lawmakers from sneaking in questionable (or any) legislation. It is a wanton subversion of democracy to employ underhanded methods to pass unpopular laws.

What exactly is "underhanded" about CISPA? They've got a coalation favoring it that includes companies like Google and Facebook. It's not an unpopular law, except among a small demographic of civil libertarians (and not even really among traditional civil libertarians, just the internet-focused ones). Average people don't care.

An unpopular law would be something like cutting Social Security benefits. That's something people would actually care about.

Re: CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited

#20

Post by rayiner »

rektide wrote: post #9
tsotha wrote: post #2

"Undead" is more like. This thing will keep coming back under different names until it passes.

No joke- Obama threatened a veto on privacy concerns and the senate punted on it- and yet: The government is dead serious about turning every sizable company on the internet into a part of a gross-national cybersecurity infrastrucutre maintainer, and they are not going to quit until the internet has been adequately leashed by the legislative hand. If corporations are people, this is definitely a violation of the 3rd…

Explain the third amendment bit: "No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law."

Who exactly is suggesting we house soldiers in peoples' houses?

Post reply on HN