I supposed I would ask what privacy-protecting language would make the approach envisioned in CISPA (cyber threat data sharing) acceptable to privacy-oriented organizations like the ones listed. If the answer is "none," I would question their good faith in the process--or at least the public face they put on it.
Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
21–30 of 113 posts
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worry that most of the opposition to this bill is based on FUD that EFF is spreading. Having experience actually working in the security industry and knowing the limitations that this bill is trying to address, the ability of the government and private sector to work together to keep malicious groups out of their networks, I recognize the necessity and intentions of this bill. This isn't about spying on Americans.…
What are the current barriers to agencies sharing intelligence with private companies? Can you give an anonymized/abstract example, where the FBI/etc might have actionable info about a 'cyber threat', and under current law can't pick up the phone or send an email warning private companies?
Primarily the barrier from government to company was that much of the valuable info was classified. The Obama executive order on cybersecurity created a mechanism to bypass this barrier that is similar to what was in CISPA.
So why pass CISPA now? To remove the barrier in the other direction, from company to government. Right now there are interpretations of certain federal laws that say that companies cannot share threat data with the government. In addition, public companies fear shareholder lawsuits if they were to disclose publicly that they have been hacked.
In an ideal world you would have a virtuous cycle, where one company stops a threat, sends the critical threat info the government, which shares it with every other company--all basically in real time. That would prevent, or at least reduce, the issue now where one exploit works again and again and again at different companies.
Whether it is possible to do this while adequately protecting privacy is the issue. I'm not a lawyer but it seems to me like it should be doable if the language in the bill is done right.
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#23Just tell the gun lobby that if any of the Gun Shops keep an online database of their customers that's subject to the law. No need to worry about a national gun registry, the GOV gets it for free. Get the NRA involved and ALL OF CONGRESS will run screaming about how this goes against the 2nd Amendment.
This actually would work. I think the general public either (a) doesn't know about this law at all or (b) doesn't think it will interfere with their daily activities. Getting other big organizations who value privacy would help solve both problems. I think that anyone who begins to understand the law will be opposed to it.
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#24One of the biggest (and most frustrating) problems with the legislative process is that the people who really want this to go through KNOW that we - "the masses" - eventually start to suffer from "protest exhaustion". They can propose a bill - we can rally our troops and get on TV and black out Wikipedia and do 100 interviews and maybe - just maybe - we can kill it. The first time. And maybe the second time. And mayb…
It's not the reality; lines can and are held. For example, drilling in ANWR has been proposed for decades and it still isn't happening, because the organizations who fight are smart about when they fire up their troops.
In addition, environmental type people are not reflexively opposed to/afraid of the federal government, so they are willing to educate themselves about the process and the issue. They learn to distinguish between issues, and when a threat is real vs. perceived.
In comparison the Internet enthusiast community seems to largely persist in the fantasy that the government should not (or cannot) have a role in the regulation of the Internet. Thus when issues do come up, they are ignorant and reactive. And they are eager for issues to go away so that they can go back to "normal" i.e. ignoring the government.
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#25One of the biggest (and most frustrating) problems with the legislative process is that the people who really want this to go through KNOW that we - "the masses" - eventually start to suffer from "protest exhaustion". They can propose a bill - we can rally our troops and get on TV and black out Wikipedia and do 100 interviews and maybe - just maybe - we can kill it. The first time. And maybe the second time. And mayb…
This is part of why I've decided to no longer politically support (vote for, nor contribute to) "the best of a bad lot".
Perhaps I'll be "throwing my vote away". Nonetheless, next time around, I'll be choosing from amongst the other choices.
For the Federal elections, it's early enough in the cycle that if people start doing this en masse, it might have some real influence.
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#26One of the biggest (and most frustrating) problems with the legislative process is that the people who really want this to go through KNOW that we - "the masses" - eventually start to suffer from "protest exhaustion". They can propose a bill - we can rally our troops and get on TV and black out Wikipedia and do 100 interviews and maybe - just maybe - we can kill it. The first time. And maybe the second time. And mayb…
I worry that most of the opposition to this bill is based on FUD that EFF is spreading. Having experience actually working in the security industry and knowing the limitations that this bill is trying to address, the ability of the government and private sector to work together to keep malicious groups out of their networks, I recognize the necessity and intentions of this bill. This isn't about spying on Americans.…
I understand what you're saying, but when legislation is proposed I look at what it very easily could enable, not just what it's written to be for. When I look at what's being proposed I see that the government is using its sovereign power to trade away my right to civil suit against a company in event of a data loss, in exchange to that company for it handing over private information (that very well can include customer information) without a warrant. In big broad, abstract ways this is to my benefit if it improves "cyber security" but it also removes some specific rights I have.
"None of the agencies or companies involved want to share any private information about their citizens or customers." The telcos have monetized their lawful intercept programs and receive bad publicity protection from the government by being legally entitled to keep it a secret. They now have a profit motive and the risk of bad publicity is low. And the civil liability immunity agreement (as I understand it) in CISPA will effectively act as a giant gift that only a sovereign power can grant, we'll offer you protection from being sued if you just hand over business data without a warrant.
If you want to talk about confusing, I watch C-SPAN constantly (it's an illness) and whenever anybody in the legislative or executive branch talks about "cyber security" they always talk about IP protection and "preventing a cyber pearl harbor" in the same breath. So if you want to blame somebody for the confusion start with the people proposing this legislation.
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go on the offensive. Instead of just fighting to kill legislation like CISPA, lobby for legislation that will guarantee the freedom of the internet. That will unequivocally protect people's liberties on (and off) the internet.
The special interests behind legislation like CISPA have professional lobbyists and millions of dollars to pay them. If you're a private citizen and want a law passed at the federal level, you need to have a cute and young white child who died due to something your law legislates against. Otherwise you don't stand a chance of being heard.
So start soliciting donations and hire your own professional lobbyist. The amount of whining about how the political process is broken because it actually takes work to influence legislation is a little ridiculous.
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I worry that most of the opposition to this bill is based on FUD that EFF is spreading. Having experience actually working in the security industry and knowing the limitations that this bill is trying to address, the ability of the government and private sector to work together to keep malicious groups out of their networks, I recognize the necessity and intentions of this bill. This isn't about spying on Americans.…
I understand what you're saying, but when legislation is proposed I look at what it very easily could enable, not just what it's written to be for. When I look at what's being proposed I see that the government is using its sovereign power to trade away my right to civil suit against a company in event of a data loss, in exchange to that company for it handing over private information (that very well can include cust…
> If you want to talk about confusing, I watch C-SPAN constantly (it's an illness) and whenever anybody in the legislative or executive branch talks about "cyber security" they always talk about IP protection and "preventing a cyber pearl harbor" in the same breath.
The trouble is that the effective, worthwhile and highly damaging cyberattacks all involve IP, in some way or another. There's not much value in taking down Coca-Cola's internal network. Stealing their M&A strategies or product roadmaps can be extremely lucrative/damaging (I recall seeing estimates that billions have been lost as a result).
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
Go on the offensive. Instead of just fighting to kill legislation like CISPA, lobby for legislation that will guarantee the freedom of the internet. That will unequivocally protect people's liberties on (and off) the internet.
The special interests behind legislation like CISPA have professional lobbyists and millions of dollars to pay them. If you're a private citizen and want a law passed at the federal level, you need to have a cute and young white child who died due to something your law legislates against. Otherwise you don't stand a chance of being heard.
That's a bullshit excuse. If you can't raise a few million dollars for your cause, it's probably because nobody gives a shit about your cause.
You think we got clean air, clean water, etc, legislation passed because Sierra Club and Earth Justice are rolling in money? No, it's because they have a cause that people care about and passionate volunteers that dedicate their lives to fighting for it. It's not the system's fault that people don't understand nor care about stuff like CISPA.
Re: Civil Liberties Groups Speak Out Against CISPA in Lead Up to Hearings
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The special interests behind legislation like CISPA have professional lobbyists and millions of dollars to pay them. If you're a private citizen and want a law passed at the federal level, you need to have a cute and young white child who died due to something your law legislates against. Otherwise you don't stand a chance of being heard.
So start soliciting donations and hire your own professional lobbyist. The amount of whining about how the political process is broken because it actually takes work to influence legislation is a little ridiculous.
Better: Start forming a coalition of private individuals and companies, and use that group to hire lobbyists. The game is broken, but you can't win if you refuse to play.