CISPA 'dead' in Senate, privacy concerns cited • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by mcintyre1994 » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:54 PM UTC

rcthompson wrote: post #10

rektide wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 3rd amendment doesn't exist anymore. It only applies in time of peace, and we are now in an eternal global war on terror.

We have always been at war with . I kid, but I honestly wasn't aware of that, was the constitution written to exclude wartime or did somebody have to amend it because some condition was untenable during wartime?

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

#22

Post by mcintyre1994 » Thu, Apr 25, 2013, 11:55 PM UTC

jstalin wrote: post #13

Expect it to be introduced on a Friday night and quickly, quietly passed with no notice.

Why wouldn't they have just passed it now? I mean, it might be re-introduced, but surely the idea is to deal with these concerns before doing so, or it'll just be dropped again?

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

#23

Post by ubernostrum » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 12:04 AM UTC

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…

If it were coming back "tweaked" to address the flaws of the bill, then sure, that'd be how the system is supposed to work. Except that's not what's happening and things aren't working.

The issue is that CISPA is fundamentally flawed; I have no doubt that there are well-meaning people who believe we need something to address the problems CISPA allegedly addresses. But any solution which consists of "first, we stop caring about the Fourth Amendment" is a non-starter and must always be.

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

#24

Post by rhizome » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 12:04 AM UTC

tsotha wrote: post #2

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

That's why an online-rights law should be passed, so the offensive things that these bills try do are shut down as a matter of law.

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

#25

Post by Apocryphon » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 12:07 AM UTC

That deflated quickly.

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

#26

Post by stefanix » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 12:25 AM UTC

CISPA will come back under a different name. Here is some historic context: http://blog.ted.com/2012/01/18/defend-our-freedom-to-share-o...

tl;dr "Time Warner called, they want you back on the couch!"

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

#27

Post by DannyBee » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 1:24 AM UTC

ubernostrum wrote: post #23

tzs wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If it were coming back "tweaked" to address the flaws of the bill, then sure, that'd be how the system is supposed to work. Except that's not what's happening and things aren't working. The issue is that CISPA is fundamentally flawed; I have no doubt that there are well-meaning people who believe we need something to address the problems CISPA allegedly addresses. But any solution which consists of "first, we stop ca…

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all of them.

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

#28

Post by warfangle » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 1:36 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #27

ubernostrum wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were coming back "tweaked" to address the flaws of the bill, then sure, that'd be how the system is supposed to work. Except that's not what's happening and things aren't working. The issue is that CISPA is fundamentally flawed; I have no doubt that there are well-meaning people who believe we need something to address the problems CISPA allegedly addresses. But any solution which consists of "first, we stop ca…

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all of them.

And when the guy sysoping your data is the one who makes the decision about what's reasonable...?

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

#29

Post by trobertson » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 1:36 AM UTC

DannyBee wrote: post #27

ubernostrum wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it were coming back "tweaked" to address the flaws of the bill, then sure, that'd be how the system is supposed to work. Except that's not what's happening and things aren't working. The issue is that CISPA is fundamentally flawed; I have no doubt that there are well-meaning people who believe we need something to address the problems CISPA allegedly addresses. But any solution which consists of "first, we stop ca…

The 4th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, not all of them.

Would you find it unreasonable to have a search warrant on every single American's internet activity? As far as I understand it, that is, in effect, what CISPA proposes.

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

#30

Post by crgt » Fri, Apr 26, 2013, 1:41 AM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #20

rektide wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If I understand the GP correctly, the claim is that we are now perpetually at cyberwar and CISPA would invite cyberwarriors into everyone's home.