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

61–70 of 95 posts

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

#61

Post by lawnchair_larry »

diminoten wrote: post #47
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…

A passable CISPA is one that wouldn't allow companies to share information specific to its users (except it's not that simple, if I'm a hacker do I get some kind of special immunity if I register on the website I hacked? What if part of the hack required me to register, is that information suddenly invalid because I have a username and a password?). I should be able to share the md5s of malware I found on my system w…

Correct, those are not problems. You can do both of those things already, and they're done every day.

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

#62

Post by lawnchair_larry »

mpyne wrote: post #41
SwellJoe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 governmen…

Do you remember the Ecomom story yesterday, where the VP of Sales had no responsibility for ensuring profits were realized, only for ensuring that revenue was high? That's the kind of problem that CISPA proponents are trying to solve with regard to "cyberspace security". It's not supposed to be another way for the government to obtain information on people or threat groups, for the exact reasons you listed. It's supp…

Everybody and their dog in the industry, as well as the 200 or so companies hit, got the inside scoop on Aurora, and CISPA does nothing to make that easier. You're being fed BS if someone told you that was a CISPA use case.

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

#63

Post by GHFigs »

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #60
andylei wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a search warrant on every single American's internet activity? As far as I understand it, that is, in effect, what CISPA proposes. no. no. not at all. please read the bill. it says nothing of the sort.

Except that it does, and that's why it's being pushed. See new details uncovered by EPIC: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57581161-38/u.s-gives-big-... CISPA's true motivation is becoming very clear. It's needed to expand a pilot program for dragnet surveillance by the NSA and defense contractors. You know, the same thing they've been doing for ages and getting sued over by the EFF. If you read the letters in suppo…

It's needed to expand a pilot program for dragnet surveillance by the NSA and defense contractors.

What horseshit! Even your own link describes the program as applicable to private networks of the participating companies. That's why there's a quote from an email wondering (emphasis mine) "Will the program cover all parts of the company network -- including say day care centers (as mentioned as a question in a [deputies committee meeting]) and what are the policy implications of this?"

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

#64

Post by prawks »

TheCapn wrote: post #3
tsotha wrote: post #2

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

As long as the people that wish to see it pass are around there's a group of people that don't want to see it pass fighting it. If we keep the public educated on the consequences of such bills we'll keep playing this game but hopefully gain a bit more support on each iteration. This is one of those scenarios, as I see it, where it is as easy as supporting the groups battling on the hill and educating/informing your f…

Mind if I ask how you explained it to her (in what I'm guessing was a relatively short time)? It seems to me that most explanations of the bill are very biased one way or another, or don't mention enough detail to be worthwhile.

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

#65

Post by 3825 »

trippy_biscuits wrote: post #58

I've complied with a number of US federal requests made to a corporation that sells internet access and hosting. The requests started out as federal subpoenas detailing exact information to retrieve. Then they started to slide to unofficial requests for "everything you have" on the target and finally settled on, "please observe this account and search for anything we can use to get a subpoena." That was 10 years ago.…

When you "observe this account and search for anything we can use to get a subpoena", have you not made yourself an agent of the government? You are now looking at client information on request of the government. I'd think that triggers the "unreasonable search and seizure" and could (I hope) result in a mistrial.

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

#66

Post by bkor »

snowwrestler wrote: post #50
TruthElixirX wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the truth is that we really do need some improvements and clarifications of certain laws to help companies improve their security. Oh, well, since you put together such a persuasive argument.

The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed. What you see from groups like the ACLU, EFF, Demand Progress, etc. is opposition to the specific language in CISPA, not opposition to the concept of a cybersecurity bill in general. They did not oppose the Senate bill last year for instance.

> The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed.

Please try to be less obvious about your lack of arguments.

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

#67

Post by lutusp »

snowwrestler wrote: post #50
TruthElixirX wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the truth is that we really do need some improvements and clarifications of certain laws to help companies improve their security. Oh, well, since you put together such a persuasive argument.

The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed. What you see from groups like the ACLU, EFF, Demand Progress, etc. is opposition to the specific language in CISPA, not opposition to the concept of a cybersecurity bill in general. They did not oppose the Senate bill last year for instance.

> The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed.

So I take it that you don't realize this is a logical error called Argumentum ad populum?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

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

#68

Post by dragonwriter »

lutusp wrote: post #67
snowwrestler wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed. What you see from groups like the ACLU, EFF, Demand Progress, etc. is opposition to the specific language in CISPA, not opposition to the concept of a cybersecurity bill in general. They did not oppose the Senate bill last year for instance.

> The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed. So I take it that you don't realize this is a logical error called Argumentum ad populum ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Actually, that's not only a fairly weakly implied argumentum ad populum, as it doesn't actually argue that the number of ignorant people are small or the number of non-ignorant people are large (though the use of "only" might imply that.)

"The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed" is more directly argumentum ad hominem, and, particularly, abusive ad hominem.

http://courses.csusm.edu/fallacies/abusive.htm

Its also, simultaneously, petitio principii since claiming that disagreement with an argument can only be due to ignorance to support an argument is equivalent to claiming that the argument is true to support the argument.

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

#69

Post by lutusp »

dragonwriter wrote: post #68
lutusp wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed. So I take it that you don't realize this is a logical error called Argumentum ad populum ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

Actually, that's not only a fairly weakly implied argumentum ad populum , as it doesn't actually argue that the number of ignorant people are small or the number of non-ignorant people are large (though the use of "only" might imply that.) "The only people who disagree with this statement are people who are simply not informed" is more directly argumentum ad hominem , and, particularly, abusive ad hominem . http://co…

I agree with your points, but I set out to mention just one logical error, and Argumentum ad populum seemed most apt as a single example.

The argument that only a minority of misinformed people hold a particular view is a negative version of Argument ad populum. Apart from that, I agree with your analysis.

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

#70

Post by relic »

rayiner wrote: post #19
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 somethin…

arjn isn't saying CISPA itself is underhanded, just that the tactics employed to push it through may be. He said CISPA was unpopular, and you can't argue that.
Post reply on HN