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

31–40 of 95 posts

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

#31

Post by EvanKelly »

mcintyre1994 wrote: post #21
rcthompson wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The third amendment has always stated "in time of peace". The specification is due to the fact that any foreseeable war was to be fought on US soil (War of 1812!) and we didn't have the infrastructure to deal with housing troops in the event of that war.

I don't think SCOTUS has had to interpret "time of peace" in the 3rd Amendment in modern times.

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

#32

Post by rayiner »

crgt wrote: post #30
rayiner wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that "quartering soldiers?" Or do words just mean whatever we want them to mean?

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

#33

Post by darkarmani »

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.

Except the ones that aren't unreasonable are carried out with a judge's signature or have very narrow latitude (plain sight, hot pursuit).

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

#34

Post by SwellJoe »

tomku wrote: post #17
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…

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 eve…

You make it sound as though those are the only two kind of people on this issue: Those who are reasonable and think CISPA can be fixed, and those who think CISPA is a bill to make spying on every American citizen the legal obligation of every ISP and internet company.

You leave no room for the vast majority of us who believe that the US government already has more than enough authority to spy on people; the government can get a warrant for collecting all of the data they currently want access to. Pretending the government doesn't already have the tools needed to enforce the law is disingenuous. Pretending that this bill is a "reasonable" response to real problems is disingenuous.

It isn't a debate between calm, rational, reasonable people who think the bill is fine (with maybe a tweak or two) on one side, and nutjobs who are paranoid and think like Gene Hackman in The Conversation on the other. There are reasonable people on both sides...but, I question the intentions (and possibly the integrity) of people, particularly people in the tech industry, who support the bill as it stands today.

It shouldn't be surprising that so many people on HN are uncompromising on Internet freedom. It's something we know more than most about, and something we care more than most about.

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

#35

Post by darkarmani »

tomku wrote: post #17
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…

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 eve…

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

And most of the US except for a few industries with powerful lobbyists.

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

#36

Post by snowwrestler »

For those not familiar with the legislative process in the U.S., the Senate does not have to pass CISPA. They just need to pass some cybersecurity bill, which can then be conferenced together with CISPA.

Some will take this as proof that the system is broken, but the truth is that we really do need some improvements and clarifications of certain laws to help companies improve their security. If the Senate passes a bill with better privacy protections, those could survive a conference and get signed into law.

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

#37

Post by alan_cx »

rayiner wrote: post #32
crgt wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that "quartering soldiers?" Or do words just mean whatever we want them to mean?

Well, if what you do virtually on line can be considered on a par with what you do physically, so inciting terrorism on facebook for example, there has to be some sort of parallel with virtual soldiers, which we could refer to as spy service spybots, spying on out computers in our homes, or on our mobile devices.

Im not sure the government can on one had work that logic to prosecute citizens, while not applying the same logic to its own activities.

So, things have moved on and so "quartering soldiers" applied to today's society should apply with the same logic used elsewhere. Especially if elsewhere is the law.

Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.

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

#38

Post by Karunamon »

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.

Mm, I agree with this just on principle, but the problem is that not every law that needs to be passed will be popular.

(The problem with having representatives just being direct, non-autonomous proxies of their constituents is that people will vote for things that benefit them and then not vote to pay for it..)

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

#39

Post by saraid216 »

alan_cx wrote: post #37
rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that "quartering soldiers?" Or do words just mean whatever we want them to mean?

Well, if what you do virtually on line can be considered on a par with what you do physically, so inciting terrorism on facebook for example, there has to be some sort of parallel with virtual soldiers, which we could refer to as spy service spybots, spying on out computers in our homes, or on our mobile devices. Im not sure the government can on one had work that logic to prosecute citizens, while not applying the s…

> Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.

This is true, but there is some matter of consensus for language shift. Furthermore, if the meaning of words shift, laws become invalid rather than simply applying themselves overbroadly. A law containing the word A meaning B does not suddenly include C, D, and E because society moves on.

This is obvious in any other setting.

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

#40

Post by rayiner »

alan_cx wrote: post #37
rayiner wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that "quartering soldiers?" Or do words just mean whatever we want them to mean?

Well, if what you do virtually on line can be considered on a par with what you do physically, so inciting terrorism on facebook for example, there has to be some sort of parallel with virtual soldiers, which we could refer to as spy service spybots, spying on out computers in our homes, or on our mobile devices. Im not sure the government can on one had work that logic to prosecute citizens, while not applying the s…

> Well, if what you do virtually on line can be considered on a par with what you do physically

But it isn't. That's why e.g. the CFAA is separate from plain old criminal trespass.

> Words don't mean what ever we want, but their meaning does change and evolve over time to reflect current society.

Sure words evolve, but some words are more amenable to evolution than others. "Quartering soldiers" is a very specific term, referencing a very specific grievance that the colonists had with the British. It has nothing to do with spying--the grievance was about being forced to "quarter" (literally, to furnish with lodging) soldiers and bear the expense of doing so.

Post reply on HN